Sei sulla pagina 1di 130

Study of Freshwater Ecosystem

Services in Croatia

April, 2014
Carried out by:

Dr. Sc. David Pithart

MSc Ivana Petrov Rani

Petra Kutlea

Aljoa Dupli
IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK

The project National Biodiversity Planning to Support the Implementation of the CBD 2011-2020
Strategic Plan in Croatia is being implemented over a period of two years (from 1 July 2012 to 31
December 2014). The Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection, Nature Protection
Directorate (MENP) is the government institution responsible for the implementation of the project
and will act as the Executing Agency. The main implementing partner of the Ministry is the State
Institute for Nature Protection (SINP), which is the central institution carrying out expert tasks of
nature protection in Croatia.
UNDP is involved as the GEF Agency for the project, and it is accountable to the GEF for the use of
funds. The project is nationally implemented (NIM).
The project National Biodiversity Planning to Support the Implementation of the CBD 2011-2020
Strategic Plan in Croatia builds on the current status and achievements of Croatia with respect to its
obligations vis--vis the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), in particular the countrys
biodiversity planning and Convention reporting processes, and its commitment to implement, at the
national level, the CBDs Strategic Plan for the period 2011-2020. The concept of ecosystem services
that is directly connected to the Aichi Targets 14 and 15 of CBD, as well as the EU 2020 Biodiversity
Strategy, are still quite new for Croatia. Since 2013, three projects in Croatia were dealing with the
economic valuation of biodiversity, where ecosystem services were used as a tool for sustainable
management of nature protected areas (in Nature Park Vransko jezero and Nature Park Velebit), or
for sustainable rural development. However, the concepts of non-market forest functions have
been used in the forestry sector from the 1990s, as concepts in which the ecological and social
benefits of the forest ecosystem were recognized and used in order to ensure sustainable forestry
management. This topic has also been indirectly integrated in NBSAP 2008, within the chapters
dedicated to the protection of biodiversity and sustainable use of natural resources (strategic
objectives and action plans for cooperation with the sectors of agriculture, forestry, hunting, fishing,
water management and tourism).
The Study for Freshwater Ecosystem Services (SFES), as a component of the project National
Biodiversity Planning to Support the Implementation of the CBD 2011-2020 Strategic Plan in Croatia,
constitutes the first institutional initiative related to the assessment of biodiversity values and
economic valuation of ecosystem services. It should provide arguments for the protection of
freshwater ecosystems, based not only on their biodiversity, but also on other benefits that such
ecosystems provide for human society or for the stability of the global ecosystem. These benefits
should also be evaluated from the perspective of the economy.

2
Contents

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1. Concept of ecosystem services in ecosystem evaluation ....................................................... 5
1.2. Values of floodplain ecosystems ............................................................................................. 6
1.3. Background reasons for the ecosystem services study........................................................... 8
2. Character, values and threats of Drava, Sava and Danube floodplains (DSDF) .................................. 9
2.1. Floodplain ecosystems of the Drava, Sava and Danube basin ................................................ 9
2.2. Sava, Drava and Danube floodplains and nature protection ................................................ 12
2.3. Evaluation of Drava, Sava and Danube floodplains ............................................................... 13
2.4. Threats to Drava, Sava and Danube floodplains ................................................................... 14
3. Study area delimitation ................................................................................................................. 17
3.1. Drava, Sava and Danube floodplains (DSDF) ......................................................................... 17
3.2. Pilot study area (PSA) ............................................................................................................ 21
3.3. Alternative scenarios for ES evaluation in PSA...................................................................... 41
3.2.1. State as-is........................................................................................................................... 41
3.2.2. State with hydropower accumulations ............................................................................... 42
3.3.3. State of sustainable use ...................................................................................................... 42
4. Meetings with relevant stakeholders and experts ............................................................................ 43
5. Ecosystem services of DSDF and PSA ................................................................................................ 46
5.1. Identification of relevant ecosystem services ....................................................................... 46
5.2. Evaluation of particular ecosystem services ......................................................................... 47
5.2.1. Regulating ecosystem services ........................................................................................... 47
5.2.1.1. Flood mitigation .................................................................................................... 47
5.2.1.2. Nutrient retention ................................................................................................. 56
5.2.1.3. Carbon sequestration ............................................................................................ 60
5.2.2. Supporting ecosystem services ..................................................................................... 61
5.2.2.1. Habitat provision .......................................................................................................... 61
5.2.3. Provisioning services ........................................................................................................... 73
5.2.3.1. Wood production ......................................................................................................... 73
5.2.3.2. Fish provision................................................................................................................ 80
5.2.3.3. Game animals provision ............................................................................................... 87
5.2.3.4. Drinking water provision .............................................................................................. 90
5.2.3.5. Gold provision (Gold prospecting, placer mining) ........................................................ 95

3
5.2.3.6. Sand and gravel provision........................................................................................... 96
5.2.4. Cultural services ............................................................................................................ 97
5.2.4.1. Recreation/tourism ...................................................................................................... 97
5.2.4.2. Art inspiration............................................................................................................. 104
6. Incentives important for support and strengthening of ecosystem services in DSDF ................ 111
7. Summary and conclusions ........................................................................................................... 115
Literature ............................................................................................................................................. 119

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity


CICES - Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services
DSDF Drava, Sava and Danube Floodplains
ES Ecosystem services
GEF Global Environment Facility
HEP Hrvatska elektroprivreda d.o.o.
HEPP Hydroelectric Power Plant
MAES Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services
MAB Man and Biosphere Reserve
MENP Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection
MHS Multipurpose Hydropower System Osijek
NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
NIM Nationally implemented
PAHPP North Production Area Hydropower Plants North
PSA Pilot Study Area
rkm River kilometre
SEE River
SFES Study of Freshwater Ecosystem Services
SINP State Institute for Nature Protection
TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
TN Total nitrogen
TP Total phosphorus
UNESCO The United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
VHS Osijek Vienamjenski hidroenergetski sustav Osijek
WFD Water Framework Directive
WMS Web Map Server

4
1. Introduction

1.1. Concept of ecosystem services in ecosystem evaluation

Increasing damage and devastation of natural ecosystems and the consequential loss of their
functions, perceived as a disbalance of natural processes e.g. the hydrological cycle or nutrient
cycles and loss of their productivity has led to increased awareness of the benefits that ecosystems
provide to people. Since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005), awareness of the natural
capital and efforts to sustain it grew exponentially. The question of economic feasibility of destroying
an ecosystem in order to realise a development project has become increasingly insistent.

Declining natural capital poses a direct threat to poor rural communities in developing countries,
which directly depend on natural sources. But, ultimately, all humankind depends on nature;
therefore, the sustainable use of nature's sources is a question of survival. Ecosystem services are the
conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species that make them,
sustain and fulfil human life (Daily, 1997). The concept of ecosystem services (ES) has been
developed to help evaluate the natural benefits, and to strengthen the arguments for preserving the
vanishing ecosystems that we depend upon. After spending a long time to fence off nature from
people, conservation has a new vision that emphasises the importance of connecting nature and
people (Everard, 2012). The economic perspective, which the ecosystem service concept has brought
into the nature protection effort, may serve as a novel argument standing alongside the traditionally
perceived values, such as, for instance, the intrinsic value of biodiversity. Such an evaluation
becomes increasingly important in the decision-making processes related to development projects
with a remarkable impact on ecosystems, or to resource or land use management, optimising the
benefits of the ecosystem.

ES evaluations often remain incomplete due to the fact that various services require different
methodological approaches (Turner et al., 2008). Moreover, value is often not fully captured in
monetary terms, since many evaluations of services are based on non-marketable products. Also, the
quantification of processes and products, important for ES evaluation, is often laborious and costly;
however, without those evaluations, ecosystem services are invariably undervalued or not valued at
all by governments, businesses, and the public (TEEB, 2010). Promoters of development projects
would prepare their own evaluations of project benefits, which can quite easily overlook the value of
a lost or damaged ecosystem simply because its ecosystem services have not been evaluated.

The ecosystem service agenda is an integral part of the European strategy to maintain and protect
biodiversity. Pursuant to the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (Action 5), Member States are obliged
to map and assess the state of ecosystems and their services on their national territories by 2014.
The assessment of economic values of these services, and promotion of the integration of these
values into accounting and reporting systems at the EU and national level, should be completed by
2020. The Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) report includes
indicators that can be used at the European and Member State level in order to map and assess
biodiversity, ecosystem condition and ecosystem services, according to the Common International

5
Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES v4.3). The completion of this task should consequently
improve the knowledge about ecosystems and their services in the EU. One of the essential
objectives of Action 5 and the MAES conceptual framework is to support the analysis of preserving
the biodiversity benefits and maintaining or bringing ecosystems into a healthy condition for human
well-being. These activities both advance the biodiversity objectives and integrate related policies,
i.e. on water, climate, agriculture, forest, and regional planning, into the strategy of wise use of
ecosystems.

1.2. Values of floodplain ecosystems

River floodplains are frequently analyzed for their multivariate values, functions and benefits. Haslam
(2008), for instance, provides an extensive list of lower riverscape values, where numerous
landscape, hydrological, chemical, biological, economic and social values are listed. As sites that can
potentially mitigate extreme events in the hydrological cycle, floodplains are becoming increasingly
important in connection with global climatic change.

The classification of ecosystem services has not been unified yet. Within this study, we will therefore
define each ES that will be evaluated, in order to avoid misunderstanding, given the fact some
alternative names of ecosystem services do not overlap entirely. Using the list of ecosystem services
from the TEEB study (2010), floodplains are important for the following ecosystem services:

Provisioning services fresh water provision, wood production, agricultural production;


Regulating services moderation of extreme events (flood protection namely), waste water
treatment (some authors also refer to this ES as water self-purification or nutrient retention);
Supporting services habitat provision;
Cultural services tourism.

If floodplains are compared to other ecosystems (Costanza et al., 1989), their overall ecosystem
services, expressed as monetary flow per hectare per year, are among the highest (Table 1). Costanza
perceived floodplains with their average flow as the second most valuable type of ecosystem,
providing ecosystem services in the value of 19,580 USD.ha-1.yr-1. According to his estimate, two very
highly ranked ecosystem services contribute the most water supply (7,600 USD.ha-1.yr-1) and
disturbance regulation (7,240 USD.ha-1.yr-1). Given the fact that floodplain ecosystems are also very
productive due to the constant supply of river water, provisioning services are also important.

6
Table 1: Main Ecosystem services of world biomes, expressed as financial flow per ha per year.(Costanza et al., 1989, Nature 387.)

7
However, most regulating ecosystem services depend on the ecological state of the floodplain,
namely on the extent of natural water pulses i.e. flooding (Table 1). The river regulation and the
loss of connectivity between the river and its floodplain have a negative impact on habitat provision,
flood mitigation and water self-purification. Deepening of the river bed and decrease of the water
level result in drainage of underground waters, which has adverse effects on drinking water provision
and wood and grass production.

River floodplains have been settled as priority localities since ancient times. The rivers represented
natural routes and ensured suitable transport conditions, and floods provided nutrient input while
increasing the fertility of soils. For this reason, the harmonization of natural processes and human
activities has always been a challenge, and history gives us many excellent examples of successful
projects of that kind, such as the floodplain management in ancient Egypt. During the last two
centuries, most European large floodplains (for instance Rhine, Odra or Loire) have been
substantially altered in order to provide agricultural land protected against floods, transport routes
and hydroelectricity. This transformation would always follow the same scenario: cutting meanders
in order to shorten the river; bank embankments; building dykes to decrease the extent of floods;
intensification of agriculture and introduction of settlements, with the loss of flood memory.

With increased knowledge of ecological processes and threats stemming from climate change,
people started to reconsider the floodplain transformations and to look for more balanced and
harmonised approaches to floodplain management, which would also take into account a number of
floodplain functions and services that are now scarce for instance, water self-purification and the
removal of contaminants (Lair et al., 2009); mitigation of climatic extremes (Habersack et al., 2013;
Pithart et al., 2010 and 2013); or providing refuge for biodiversity. In general, the role of European
wetlands is being reconsidered, often with connection to threats of global climate change (kov et
al., 2013).

1.3. Background reasons for the ecosystem services study

The background reason for the preparation of this study is a growing awareness of Croatian
(floodplain) ecosystems' values, and the need to gain relevant information about them and their
importance for the quality of life in this area, and, consequently, their economic importance.
Croatian floodplains, same as floodplains in general, have always been a target of a variety of human
activities, such as settlement, agriculture, transport or energy production. On the other hand, their
potential to provide drinking water, flood protection, habitats for endangered species, hardwood
timber, fish and game should be considered as well. In possible future decision processes,
information about these values should be at disposal, and should be taken into account.

The aims of the study and its scope are as follows:

Describe floodplain ecosystems in the Drava, Sava and Danube basin; asses their state and
relevant trends

Identify main threats to these ecosystems

Identify main ecosystem services which they provide

8
Develop alternative scenarios of future development in the selected pilot study area (PSA)

Evaluate ecosystem services for alternative scenarios in the PSA, together with the
evaluation of selected ecosystem services in the entirety of the Drava, Sava and Danube
basin floodplains

Identify governance environment and incentives in connection with economic activities that
impact upon biodiversity

Prepare a set of key messages to decision makers, backed up by credible data from the
results of the analysis

2. Character, values and threats of Drava, Sava and Danube floodplains


(DSDF)

2.1. Floodplain ecosystems of the Drava, Sava and Danube basin

The rivers Sava, Drava and Danube and their floodplains in Croatia (Figure 1) represent a large,
relatively ecologically preserved and interconnected complex of riverine and alluvial ecosystems in
the European context (Schneider-Jakobi, 2004). These rivers and their floodplains remained relatively
close to their natural state, unlike other large Danube tributaries such as Tisza, Vh, Morava and
other rivers, or other parts of the Danube River (for instance in Austria or Slovakia).

River beds of DSDF have undergone partial shortenings (cutting-off of meanders) and fortifications,
but, apart from the Sava River in the Zagreb area, they have never been canalised to a large extent.
Some 15% of the Drava River in Croatia has been fortified (based on an unpublished analysis by
SINP). River beds still kept part of their dynamics, such as meandering, creating or changing side
arms, and overbank flooding (Figure1). They have kept their connectivity for fish: downstream of
Dubrava accumulation (rkm 160), the River Drava has no migration barriers all the way to its
confluence with the Danube, and the same can be said for the Danube and Sava rivers within their
entire stretches on the Croatian territory (Mrakovi et al., 2006).

9
Figure 1: Typical Drava floodplain character and land cover in Gornja Podravina (Podravlje). Active floodplain
1,5-2 km wide is partially delineated by dykes. Some meanders have been cut off (Jekovo, right). The river can
still change its trace, braided channels are partly preserved and connected to the main river bed, and gravel
bars are common. Location: 215-220 rkm, north of the Repa bridge.

A large section of the northern continental part of the Croatian territory has been formed by this
river system. Fluvial sediments (both Holocene and Pleistocene) contribute to its total area
substantially (Figure 7). The original land cover of these areas was mostly consisting of soft floodplain
forests (frequently inundated willow and poplar forests) and hard floodplain forests (less frequently
inundated oak, hornbeam, alder and ash forests), but it was lost during the process of land
cultivation and conversion of fertile soils to agricultural land (otari, 2004). The core zones of river
corridors remained covered by the soft floodplain forest along most of their stretches, although this
zone is quite narrow at the Sava River. On the other hand, extensive areas, such as the Drava forests
near Osijek, and also large complexes of hard floodplain forests, have been preserved and
successfully managed: among others, we can mention the areas of Turopoljski lug, Spava, Varoki
lug or Repa forest in this context. In addition, valuable grasslands and other types of wetlands
(standing waters, reed beds, tall sedges and others) remained relatively abundant, even though the
dominant land cover type of the Drava, Sava and Danube floodplains is cultivated (and mostly arable)
land.

Due to the construction of dykes, the inundation zones of DSDF have been reduced substantially, but
there are still massive retention spaces in the scale of tens of thousands of hectares, and billions of
cubic metres (more on that in Section 5.2.1.1). Due to appropriate distance of the dykes from the
active river bed, the River Drava has not lost its contact with the floodplain (also because of sections
without any dykes). Hence, overbank flows may reach a width of approximately 1-2 km during high

10
waters (Figure 1). On the other hand, the Sava River, apart from Gornja Posavina, has been mostly
cut off from the floodplain by dykes located quite close to the river bed, allowing only for a corridor
up to 1 km wide along its lower section from Gradika to the Serbian border (Figure2).

Figure 2: Typical Sava floodplain character and land cover in Donja Posavina. Active floodplain is minimised by
dykes, and intensive agriculture almost reaches the river banks. Location: east of Slavonski Brod.

Under the spacious DSDF lowlands, aquifers of intergranular porosity of Pleistocene and Holocene
ages were formed. The lithological composition of the aquifers is dominated by gravel and sand in
the western parts of the Drava and Sava basins. Sandy aquifers are prevalent in the central and
eastern parts. Groundwater accumulated in these aquifers constitutes the basis of the water supply
in northern Croatia (Brki et al., 2010).

The area around the Drava, Sava and Danube rivers contains a variety of wetland habitats, including
some of the most threatened habitats in Europe: alluvial forests, wet grasslands, gravel and sand
bars, islands, steep banks, oxbow lakes, stagnant backwater, abandoned riverbeds and meanders.
They are surrounded by riparian forests and arable land with scattered pastures. The majority of
terrestrial habitats of the core area and the buffer zone are covered by softwood or hardwood
gallery forests, but there are also extensive grassland areas along the rivers. This variety of habitats
provides shelter for a significant number of species (more on that in Section 5.2.2.1).

The river and floodplain ecosystem is vital for the people who live there it provides them with a
number of provisioning services, such as clean water, fish, firewood, timber, game, wood, sand, and
gold (more on that in Section 5.2.3.), protects them from floods and droughts (more on that in
Section 5.2.1.) and stabilises and maintains key vital cycles such as nutrient, carbon and water cycles.

11
2.2. Sava, Drava and Danube floodplains and nature protection

The state of rivers, their adjacent land cover types and habitats, partly preserved extensive
management and good connectivity that enables the development of an abundance of plant, insect,
bird, mammal and fish species and communities, have been recognised as an important issue both at
the national and the international level; as a result, different categories of nature protection have
been declared in the last decades (for detailed list, see Annex 1):

Along the Croatian sections of the Drava, Sava and Danube rivers, there are relevant
ecological network sites (part of the EU ecological network Natura 2000)1 (Figure 3)

Three wetlands of international importance (Ramsar sites)

Furthermore, the Drava river and its floodplain are part of the core zone of the
Transboundary UNESCO Biosphere Reserve "MuraDravaDanube" in Croatia and Hungary.2
The Biosphere Reserve, together with the riverine areas of Austria, Serbia and Slovenia, will
become the first worldwide pentalateral BR and Europe's largest river protected area

Regional Park Mura - Drava (Mura and Drava Rivers)

Nature Park Kopaki rit (Drava and Danube Rivers)

Nature Park Lonjsko polje (Sava River)

16 Significant Landscape Areas

20 Special Reserves

9 Natural Monuments

5 Park Forests

10 Horticultural Monuments

1
http://natura2000.dzzp.hr/natura/
2http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/europe-north-
america/croatiahungary/mura-drava-danube/

12
Figure 3: The extent of Drava, Sava and Danube floodplains (DSDF), as they are delineated for this study (see
Section 3.1.) and for the EU ecological network Natura 2000. SPA Areas of Conservation Important for Birds
(POP, according to the Croatian legislation); pSCI Areas of Conservation Important for Species and Habitats
(POVS, according to Croatian legislation3). See also: Annex 1. (Source: SINP, 2013).

The proclamation of all these protected area categories is an integral part of the commitments of
Croatia stemming from a number of international conventions in the field of biodiversity: the
Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio); the Convention on the Conservation of the Wild European
Flora and Fauna and Natural Habitats (Bern); Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds;
Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora; the
Convention on the Conservation of Wetlands of International Importance, Especially as Waterfowl
Habitats (Ramsar); the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn).
All these instruments are fully implemented in the Croatian Nature Protection Act (OG 80/13).

2.3. Evaluation of Drava, Sava and Danube floodplains

The economic importance of DSDF has been recognised by different sectors in particular services,
such as timber production (Prpi and Jakovac, 1998) or flood protection (Brundi et al., 2001;
Schneider-Jakobi, 2004), although the evaluation mostly did not touch upon the monetary aspects. A
complex or holistic evaluation is missing, which is why it is the subject of this study.

3
Regulation on ecological network OG 124/13; SINP.

13
2.4. Threats to Drava, Sava and Danube floodplains

Among the major actual threats with a substantial impact on the ecological state and the ability of
providing ecosystem services, one can mention the following:

Canalising rivers for navigation

The rivers Drava, Sava and Danube are already used for navigation4. The main water traffic corridor
in Croatia is Corridor VII which includes the Danube River and the Sava River (Figure 4). The Agency
for Inland Waters and Regular Maintenance provides measures for the maintenance of navigation
corridors, such as the deepening of river beds (gravel and sand extraction); river embankment and
structures for diverting the river flow (groynes); and shortening of the river trace by strengthening
the curves. For instance, the lower Drava between Osijek and its mouth to Danube has been
shortened from the original length of 32 km (in 1784) to the contemporary length of 21 km (in 1988)
(Kuspili et Beki, 2004). These structures accelerate the water flow and enhance erosion (Kuspili et
Beki, 2004), and they also have various negative impacts on the ecosystem namely, they reduce
the connectivity of the river and its floodplain.

While the Drava River is not intended for the extension of navigation, plans to construct a new inland
waterway, the Danube-Sava Canal from Vukovar to amac (61.5 km), are listed in the Croatian
strategic documents5. This canal should be considered in relation with the Danube-Adriatic traffic
corridor, which is a combined river-railroad corridor. This corridor includes the Danube-Sava Canal
(61.5 km, Figure 4), the River Sava - IV Navigation Class (345.5 km), and a new Zagreb-Rijeka railroad
(160 km). This project would turn 200 km of the Sava River into a reservoir. Scheider-Jacoby (2004)
described the details and impact on the Sava river corridor, including the poor economic prospects of
this development project.

4
http://vodniputovi.hr/en/navigation/
5Strategijaprostornog ureenja Republike Hrvatske, 1997; Izmjena i dopuna Strategije prostornog ureenja
Republike Hrvatske, 2013; Strategija razvitka rijenog prometa u Republici Hrvatskoj (2008. 2018.); Srednjoroni
plan razvitka vodnih putova i luka unutarnjih voda Republike Hrvatske (2009. 2016).

14
Figure 4: Navigation routes and classes for the rivers Drava, Sava and Danube in Croatia (Source: Agency for
Inland Waters, 2013).

Eutrophication

Eutrophication of rivers may adversely influence the water quality in permeable sediments from
which the drinking water is abstracted, use of water for recreation, and the ecological status of
riverine habitats. Moreover, the nutrient pollution in Danube has a strong impact on the Black Sea
coastal ecosystems (UNDP, 2006). This nutrient transport and its reduction are perceived as a serious
problem, and broad and coordinated international efforts have been made to improve the situation
(more on that in Section 5.2.1.). According to Niemayer (1999), the principal sources of surplus
nutrient inputs into the Danube basin rivers are the following:

Insufficient wastewater collection and treatment at the municipal level

Insufficient wastewater treatment of industrial enterprises

Water pollution caused by intensive agriculture and livestock breeding

Inappropriate waste disposal sites

Technical flood protection measures

Technical flood protection measures are partly identical to the measures of support to navigation,
described above. The construction of dykes (Figures 1, 2 and 5) and their position have a crucial
impact on the extent of the active inundation zone (more on that in Section 5.2.1.).

Fortifications, embankments and other forms of bank stabilisation with the aim of preventing bank
erosion have been made on all three rivers (Croatian Waters). According to the internal SINP
monitoring and field data collection, Drava has been fortified on 15% of its course (from Dubrava
HEPP to the confluence with the Danube River).

15
The planned flood protection measures have a limited extent, and therefore cannot be taken as a
major threat. However, they contribute to the overall negative trend in accelerating the river flows
and erosion of the river bed.

Figure 5: Flood protection dyke on the Sava River, Posavina.

Hydroelectricity power plants with accumulations (HEPP)

HEPP facilities in general represent a major impact both on the river corridor, its ecological status
(Srensen, 2004), and the ability to provide ecosystem services. The usual consequences of
constructing lowland-type accumulations (with low stratification of the water column) are as follows
(Baxter, 1977):

Destruction of the river and floodplain ecosystem in the locality. New freshwater ecosystem
of the reservoir should be expected to have much lower biodiversity, when compared to the
original river and floodplain ecosystem complex. The biodiversity would be lower even when
compared to the most similar freshwater ecosystem the lake ecosystem.
Due to the water level fluctuation needed to optimise throughflow and head (height
difference between the reservoir level and the turbines), which is important for electricity
production, but also for flood protection, the littoral zone crucial for biodiversity and fish
populations cannot develop in full.
Reservoir dam represents a barrier for fish, and permanent discontinuity throughout the
river corridor. Fish passages can mitigate this damage, but cannot fully compensate it.
Absence of driven material and reduction of flow fluctuations cause the reduction of natural
river bed processes, namely of the accumulation of material, trapped in reservoirs. Typical
consequences include increased erosion and deepening of the river bed down to the
accumulation, with consequent changes in underground water levels.

Numerous HEPPs on the Drava River (11 in Austria, 8 in Slovenia and 3 in Croatia) have a major
impact on change patterns in all of the above mentioned characteristics and processes in river and
floodplain ecosystems. Namely, the changes in bed load transport dynamics, resulting in river bed

16
deepening, seem to be the most serious threat to various vital ecosystem services. These impacts are
explained and documented in the Section 3.2., dealing with the pilot study area, which is influenced
in particular by the three existing HEPPs in Varadin County.

There are numerous plans to build new HEPPs in order to supply Croatia with electricity; especially
on the Drava River, where the chain of proposed HEPPs (Molve 1 and 2 and VHS Osijek) is being
planned in the most preserved and ecologically valuable sections of the river (Figure 6). Because of
their relevance to the pilot study area, these development projects are described in Section 3.2.
There are also plans to build several HEPPs on the Sava River from Zagreb to Sisak (Aleri, S. et al.,
2012; MGIPU, 1997).

Figure 6: Location of some proposed HEPPs on the Drava River (at present, Novo Virje and Botovo are replaced
by Molve 1 and Molve 2). (Vienamjenski hidrotehniki sustav Osijek, 2012).

3. Study area delimitation

3.1. Drava, Sava and Danube floodplains (DSDF)

For the purposes of this analysis, one first had to define the extent of the Drava, Sava and Danube
floodplains for which ecosystem services would be evaluated. The definitions of floodplain depend
on the perspective or the context in which we approach the study. Floodplains in the geological
sense are formed by alluvial sediments; in this context, the substantial part of northern Croatia is
formed by floodplains (Figure 7). However, these extensive floodplains lost their original land cover,
and became cultivated agricultural land without direct influence of the river.

17
Quaternary alluvial - proluvial
deposits and alluvial deposits
(Holocene)
Quaternary Lake and pond deposits
(Holocene)
Quaternary Aeolan sand deposit
(Holocene)
Sand and clay (Miocene and
Pliocene)
Igneous rocks

Figure 7: Geological map of Croatia showing the area and location of sediments formed by the river activity:
Holocene alluvial sediments, Pleistocene fluvial sediments, Pleistocene swamp forest and Holocene swamp
sediment. (Croatian Geological Survey, 2009).

Floodplain (ecosystem) in the ecological sense is based on the existence of an interconnected system
of the river and its floodplain. This concept has been developed by Junk (1989) in particular, within
the theory of the flood pulse concept, where discontinuous flooding is a prerequisite for the
existence of the so-called active floodplain. The present extent of inundation zones is shown on
Figure 8, indicating that long sections of rivers have been transformed and lost their original
inundation zones.

18
Figure 8: Area of the Drava, Sava and Danube floodplains (DSDF) and the extent of inundation zones (Source:
SINP, 2013).

While the geological delineation would be too wide for the purposes of this study, the limitation
solely to inundation zones would be too narrow. The main reasons are large complexes of the
original floodplain vegetation types, which still correspond to and depend upon the river itself,
namely on the regime of underground waters. Being an integral component of the original floodplain
ecosystems, these complexes still contribute remarkably to ecosystem services, even in those cases
in which they are located behind the inundation zones, outside of the active floodplain (mainly
because of their position behind the dykes). Hard floodplain forest is the typical representation of
these complexes.

Another criterion for the delimitation of the floodplain providing ecosystem services may be found in
its recognition as an area of natural values, which is therefore designated as protected area at a
different level. However, this criterion was also not satisfactory, for the same reason as the previous
one: in such a way, large areas of typical floodplain habitats would be left out of the study area.

In the end, a set of criteria has been defined for DSDF delineation (the extent is shown in Figures 3
and 8, and Figures in Section 5.2.2.).

1. DSDF, as it is defined in this study, includes the entire area of:

Inundation zones as they have been declared by the Croatian Waters (Figure 8)

Mura-Drava Regional Park located in Croatia (not the transition zone). For detailed
description of protected areas, see Annex 1

19
Natura 2000 sites declared on the basis of habitats related to floodplain ecosystem (Figure 3)

Core and buffer zones of the Biosphere Reserve "MuraDravaDanube" in Croatia and
Hungary

Nature Park Kopaki rit

Nature Park Lonjsko polje

2. DSDF includes all larger area units of habitats characteristic for floodplains (Figure 9). For that
reason, relatively isolated floodplain segments of Drava and Sava tributaries Kupa, esma
and Ilova rivers - have also been included in DSDF, because of their preserved floodplain
habitats.

3. DSDF covers areas with the following geological subsoil of Holocene sediments: river and
creek alluvium, pluvial deposits, Aeolian sands and marsh sediments (Figure 7).

20
Figure 9: Delimitation of DSDF detail of the Drava and Danube confluence (Source: SINP, 2009).

3.2. Pilot study area (PSA)

PSA selection

Ecosystem services evaluated within the PSA need to be at least partially transferable to the whole
DSDF area. Therefore, PSA should be representative for the entirety of DSDF in terms of the variety
of habitats, land cover and management types. On the other hand, PSA selection should also reflect
the actual threats to DSDF so as to enable the definition of different future scenarios within the
PSA. For these reasons, we have focused on floodplain areas with both preserved and cultivated
(managed) parts, and areas in which development projects with major impact on floodplain
ecosystem services are being prepared.

The pre-selection process resulted in two candidate localities: the Drava area in Osijek-Baranja
County (Figure 10), and Drava-Molve (between Botovo and Repa bridges, Koprivnica-Krievci
County, Figure 11). There are extensive hydropower projects planned on both sections of the river
(for reference, see Section 3.2.2). Both floodplain areas contain segments of non-regulated main
river bed, oxbows, wetlands and land cover adapted to periodical inundation.

21
Figure 10: Drava River in the section where HEPP Osijek is being planned.

Finally, the PSA Drava-Molve has been selected for the following reasons:

1. Drava-Molve is more diverse then Drava-Osijek in terms of land cover (more patchy structure
of terrestrial ecosystems); it represents a wider variety of agriculture and forestry
management (different types of pastures, arable land, both hard and soft floodplain forest).
2. Higher slope of the river at Drava-Molve enables erosion-accumulation processes to form
structures like gravel bars, which are valuable and typical for preserved rivers in DSDF.
3. The shorter distances make the area better accessible, and can result in savings on travel
costs.
4. There is no limitation in access to the Drava-Molve locality, unlike the Drava-Osijek area,
where minefields prevent access to the left bank of the Drava River.
5. The proximity of existing HEPPs near Varadin may help to understand the possible impact of
proposed HEPPs on the floodplain ecosystem.
6. Drava-Molve is also a pilot study area for the international SEE River project and the
proposed LIFE Project, which means that a certain level of synergy can be expected.

Demarcation and description

PSA Drava-Molve covers the area between 192 rkm and 230 rkm, creating a section of 38 rkm. The
surface of the area is 201 km2; it is approximately 30 km long and 7 km wide (Figure 11). Politically, it
is situated in Koprivnica-Krievci County. PSA is an integral part of DSDF.

22
Figure 11: Location and extent of PSA Drava-Molve with the extent of the inundation zone (width ranges from
1.5 to 3 km) and with the position of dykes (Source: SINP, 2013).

Character and state of the river

Long-term average discharges at lower Drava (Table 2) point to a decreasing trend in the period
2008-2012, when compared with the 1963-2012 period.

Table 2: Discharge of the lower Drava river. Blue colour indicates the profiles on inlet and outlet of PSA.
(Source: Croatian Waters, 2013)

Period:
1963- Period:
2012 2008-2012 Period: 2002-2012

Q average Q average Qmax - Date Q Q min Date Q


Profile Period m3.s-1 m3.s-1 m3.s-1 max m3.s-1 min
DRAVA - Donja
Dubrava 1983 - 2012 323 2061 7.11.2012 23,1 20.4.2003
1926 - 1943
DRAVA - Botovo 1946 - 2012 496 487 2071 7.11.2012 85,4 14.1.2002
DRAVA - Novo Virje
Skela 1977 - 2011 491 1790 25.8.2005 111 9.1.2002
DRAVA - Terezino
polje 1961 - 2012 511 503 1680 22.9.2010 111 21.1.2002

23
DRAVA - Donji 1926 - 1943
Miholjac CS 1946 - 2012 525 511 1590 23.9.2010 167 14.2.2002
1962 - 1993
DRAVA - Belie 2003 - 2012 522 1425 24.9.2010 197 29.9.2003

The Drava River in the PSA has the slope of 0.34 , and its originally high potential for the transport
of bed load haulages (coarse and medium-coarse gravel and coarse sand) naturally corresponds to a
transitional type between the anastomosing (furcation) and the meandering type (Michor et al.,
2013). The main river channel is accompanied by numerous side branches and oxbows with rich
macrophyte flora and fish communities (Figure 12). Islands and gravel bars still constitute a typical
feature of this section of the river (Figure 13).

Figure 12: Side branch of the Drava River with macrophyte stands (Nymphaea alba, Myriophyllum sp.)

24
Figure 13: Gravel bars in PSA

Although the character of the river remained relatively natural, when compared with most of the
western European or central European rivers, it has changed remarkably over time, as can be seen
from Figure 14. Due to river regulation over the last 250 years, most meanders have been cut off,
and the river trace has been straightened and shortened; the width of the river dropped remarkably.
Bank stabilisations (Figure 15) are extensive; most banks have remained unsecured, however (Figure
16).

Figure 14: The second military survey map of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the period 1865-1869 (Croatia
and Slavonia). The old extent of the Drava River overlaps with the current watercourse (dark blue); PSA borders
are indicated by the red line.

25
Figure 15: River banks protected by rip-rap structures

Figure 16: Natural river bank with gravel deposits in PSA

26
Figure 17: Dam disconnecting a river oxbow from the active river bed. The Croatian Waters plan to remove
some of these dams.

Some braided river channels were disconnected from the main river (Figure 17), whereas other
channels remain active. The active inundation zone is partly bordering the dyke system (Figure 1 on
page 10, and Figure 11 on page 23); in areas where dykes have not been built, the extent of
inundation is limited by the natural elevation of the terrain.

Land cover, habitats and management

The core zone of the floodplain in the PSA is a mosaic structure of floodplain forests, aquatic
habitats, wetlands, meadows and arable land (Figure 1 on page 10). The dominant and typical land
cover types in PSA include the following:

Softwood floodplain forest. This type of ecosystem is adjacent to the river and its inundation zone.
Willows and poplars are dominating, and providing some extensively harvested firewood (Figure 18).
Side arms and permanently flooded oxbows make the accessibility for management difficult.

27
Figure 18: Extensive harvest of firewood in soft floodplain forest

Hardwood floodplain forest: This type of forest is dominated by oaks or ashes (Figure 19), and it is
located at larger distances from the river in areas that are less frequently inundated. A well-known
locality is the Repa forest in the north-eastern part of the PSA. Nowadays, most of the forest is
behind the dykes, so the frequency of flooding dropped since the construction of dykes.

Figure 19: Ash dominated hard floodplain forest near ingi-Lingi sandpits

Floodplain hay meadows (Figure 20). Most of the area with this meadow type has been replaced by
abandoned meadows during the previous decades, due to the declining interest of farmers to
cultivate floodplain areas.

28
Figure 20: Hay meadow near Repa bridge

Abandoned floodplain meadows (Figure 21) are in different state of degradation, and they have
been overgrowing with woodland, including invasive species (Amorpha fruticosa).

Figiure 21: Abandoned hay meadow overgrowing with invasive species Robinia pseudoacacia.

Wetlands. Paradoxically, extensive wetlands can also be found on the outer side of dykes (Figure 22),
which indicates the possibility of extending the active inundated floodplain, and enhancing its flood
mitigation effect.

29
Figure 22: Oxbow lake disconnected from the active river bed, and consequently silted up with sediments and
overgrown by reed (Phragmites communis), Komatnica.

Arable land. Arable land inside the inundation zone (between the dykes and the river; Figure 23)
indicates that the inundation in some parts is not so frequent so as to prevent this type of land use.

Figure 23: Arable land on the inner side of dykes

Impact of hydropower accumulations on the Drava River on the PSA and the lower Drava section

Existing three HPPs on the Drava River are situated in Varadin County between 242 rkm and 309
rkm. The reservoirs Ormo (Varadin), akovec and Dubrava (Figure 24; for technical parameters, see
Table 2 on page 40) were built in the period from 1975 to 1989. They are components of the
Production Area Hydropower Plants North the PAHPP North system.

30
Turbines and generators are situated on derivation canals, which outflow from each reservoir; this
arrangement makes it possible to increase the head of turbines and consequently the electricity
production. In its peak regime, the water level and outflow of the PAHPP North system oscillates in
the range of 0.6-1.6 m per day (Schneider-Jacoby, 2004). The old Drava river bed gets the minimum
biological throughflow; during the flood waters, it gets the surplus of throughflow which exceeds the
throughflow capacity of the derivation canal.

Figure 24: akovec (left) and Dubrava (right) HEPP accumulations in Varadin County. Derivation canals get the
majority of Drava discharge.

Various impacts on the environment, ecosystem services, and local community have been described.
Some of these impacts are consequences of all upstream HEPPs in Slovenia and Austria; however, the
access of impact has mostly limited reach, because of the fact that the river processes (erosion and
accumulation) are gradually restored at a certain distance from the accumulation. Therefore, the
strongest impact on the lower Drava section is posed by the HEPP North system at Varadin. The
details are explained in the continuation.

Detected impacts can be summarized as follows:

Changes in the underground water regime

Increase of underground water levels in the vicinity of accumulations. Due to the pressure
of aboveground water body in the accumulations, and permeability of both the alluvial
sediments and dams, the underground water in close vicinity of the reservoirs increased to
adverse levels. It flooded some basement areas of houses in nearby villages. To compensate
for these effects, additional investments were therefore needed - canals or holes have been
made to drain this surplus water. Along the dams, drainage canals derive the water
permanently leaking through dams, having the discharge of about 5 m3.s-1. At the akovec
reservoir, this permanent water level increase was about 0.5-1.2 m; the level of oscillations
also decreased partially (Grdan and Kovaev-Marini, 1992).

Drainage of underground water by derivation canals. The inlet part of the derivation canal
leading the water into the power plant is made from impermeable concrete and has no
contact with underground waters. The outlet (or discharge) derivation canal (Figure 24),
leading water from power plants to the old river Drava, is deepened water table of the

31
power station is 9 m below the ground (akovec accumulation), and permeable, and it
efficiently drains its surroundings. The ground water level along the power plant station is
lowered by about 8 m. The influence drops with distance from the river, but is still detectable
at a distance of 4.5 km (Gran and Kovaev-Marini, 1992).

Drainage of underground water around the old river Drava. Average discharge of the Drava
River is 335 m3.s-1 in the HEPP. The biological minimum discharge which has to be released by
HEPP to the old river bed is 8 m3.s-1. This value is far from an ecologically acceptable flow,
which has never been defined (Bonacci and Oskoru, 2010). Apart from own HEP monitoring,
there is no independent monitoring of this biological minimum flow. Such a dramatic
decrease of discharge resulted in drainage of the original floodplain, and a remarkable
decrease of wood increment in soft floodplain forests (see Section 5.2.3).

Bed load and suspended sediment transport situation

The chain of Hydropower Plants North at Varadin has a massive influence on the
freeflowing stretch of the Drava in the PSA, by trapping the suspended sediment load
(Figure 25). This phenomenon is present, of course, on all upstream Drava HEPPs, and
depends on the length of the upstream free-flowing river stretch and other
hydrogeomorphological conditions. Due to the construction of hydro power plants, there is a
deficit of bed load downstream. The bed load input is limited to sideway erosion or to the
transportation of its tributaries (Mura, for instance).

Bonacci et al. (1992) and Bonacci and Oskuru (2010) have quantified the decrease of
suspended sediment load at different Drava profiles (Varadin, Botovo and Donji Miholjac) in
different time periods. At the Varadin profile, sediment load decreased 2.3 times after the
sub-period 1960-1967 after the construction of Zlatolije accumulations (Figure 25). In the
same period, there was no decrease on the Donji Miholjac profile, showing the limited extent
of Zlatolije impact on the sediment regime. At the Botovo profile, suspended sediment load
decreased by 17% after HEPP Varadin was constructed. After the construction of HEPP
akovec, transport decreased 2.7 times, and, after the construction of the Dubrava facility,
another decrease of 28% has been detected. Today, only about 28% of the suspended
sediment measured during the years 19681974 flows through the Botovo profile, and 20%
through the Donji Miholjac profile.

32
Figure 25: Accumulation of sediments in Varadin accumulations (left) and Zlatolije (right) in Slovenia.
On the left side of the picture, one can distinguish the sediment (in the upper part of the lake) and
reflexion of the sun.

Figure 26: Suspended sediment load decrease in three sub-periods on the Drava profile Varadin.
1960-1981: before the construction of HEPPs. 1968-1974: after the construction of Zlatolije. 1975-
1981: after the construction of the Varadin facility. Source: Bonacci and Oskuru (2010).

Drainage of underground waters by deepening of the river bed down to HEPPs.

This process is caused by a permanent lack of bed load trapped in accumulations, and
increased erosion potential of river water down to the accumulations. In addition, the
narrowing of the river bed, and the shortening of its trace due to technical flood protection
and local erosion prevention measures, are accelerating the overall erosion. In the PSA, the
average deepening of the river bed was approximately 1.7 cm per year between 1926 and
1991, with reference to the mean annual water level, and 2.56 cm with reference to the
minimum annual water level. Overall, the Drava deepened by 1.1 m between 1926 and 1991
at the flood marker in Botovo (Mohl, 1998; Bonacci and Oskoru, 2010). More recent
analyses in the downstream area, at the flood marker in Terezino Polje at rkm 152.5, show
that the deepening of the river bed since 1875 amounts to about 3 m (Kuspili et Beki,
2004); degradation processes in the Drava river bed near the mouth to the Danube resulted
in the deepening of the river bed by about 3 m in the period from 1960 until the present
times. The following consequences can be noted:

An increasing separation of the river and soft alluvial forests (visible in the
form of river banks that are unnaturally high in long stretches); deficit of
flood and underground water.
Deficit of underground water for more distant hard floodplain forests.
Formation of new open gravel bars is reduced, and, due to the larger
contribution of fine sediment, the increased sedimentation rate can be
found in old branches of the river (Michor et al., 2013). Also, the structure of

33
gravel bars has changed in favour of smaller fractions, which means that
gravel bars can be siltated, and their permeability decreases.
Decreasing river discharge. This trend has also been proven by Bonacci and
Oskuru (2010), but it cannot be attributed solely to the construction of
accumulations causing the deepening of the river bed. Decrease of
discharges started in the Botovo profile in 1981, and it points to a statistically
significant difference between the annual average discharge of 529 ms in
the period 1926-1980, and the discharge level of 463 m.s in the period
1981-2006. Climate change and other measures resulting in the acceleration
of the outflow of river water are responsible as well.

Changed patterns of groundwater recharge. Reduction of inundation zones by limiting the


flood water in the accumulations causes the weakening of this process. The contribution of
regular flooding to groundwater recharge (together with precipitation and recharge from
river beds) is beyond dispute. Babtist at al. (2006) estimate the rate of groundwater recharge
at 1 mm per day in the Lonjsko polje flood detention area. Moreover, natural river beds are
more permeable when compared with mostly colmatated bottoms of accumulations.

Siltation of accumulations

Suspended load trapped in accumulations (Figure 25) causes their siltation, resulting in decrease of
the reservoir volume. Varadin accumulation is facing the biggest threat of that kind. The thickness of
sediment is changeable and hard to predict. Thick sediment layers derive the water current towards
the banks (form and inner river bed in the accumulation), which enhances erosion of the banks. The
analysis of sediment thickness is not available. Every large flood splashes one part of the sediment
(fine particles) out towards the old river Drava.

Discharge oscillations

Due to the daily peak regime in electricity production, oscillations occur in the discharge of outlet
from HEPP (Figure 27). These oscillations may have an adverse effect on fish populations (Mrakovi
et al., 2006), in particular during the reproduction phases.

The HEPP Dubrava, which is situated upstream, often operates in a hydropeaking mode with two
daily peaks. The variations in water levels have an impact on discharges in the PSA.

34
Figure 27: Water level oscillations caused by hydropeaking of Dubrava HEPP (dependent on the operation
regime of the entire interconnected HEPP North system). Data from: Michor et al., 2013 (Source: Croatian
Waters).

Changes in nutrient transport and cycles

Proper analysis of changes in nutrient transport would require a more detailed analysis, which is
outside of the scope of this study. In general terms, natural floodplains and river systems can serve as
nutrient sinks (Lair et al., 2009); however, during the extreme floods, they also serve as nutrient
sources. As far as phosphorus is concerned, this is true for reservoirs as well, given the fact that
phosphorus binds with suspended solids sediment on the bottom, where it can be resuspended in
the water column and cause eutrophication of the water body.

According to the saprobity index, HEPP Varadin (Figure 28) and akovec are eutrophic water bodies,
while Dubrava is moderately eutrophic. (Mrakovi et al., 2006). Algal cell volumes in all the three
lakes were stable in the period 1999-2012 (showing a decreasing trend since 2008, and an increasing
trend until 2005). Trophical diatom index is exhibiting an increasing trend, the saprobic index is
stable, and the Shanon Wiener Index of Diversity has been stable since 2002. These data point to a
mildly prevailing eutrophic status of accumulation waters.

In contrast to standing water bodies, where the nutrients are stored in sediments, the nutrients in
active floodplain are processed in biofilms covering wet surfaces like gravel, sand and plants, and are
transformed to a much larger extent into plant biomass, which causes a relative slowdown of
nutrient transport until the biomass is decomposed again (more on that in Section 5.2.2.).

35
Figure 28: Eutrophic water in the Varadin accumulation, with colouring caused by algal biomass.

Changed patterns of flood protection

Decrease of the old Drava river bed discharge capacity. During high discharges or flood
water (with the discharge at HEPP Varadin exceeding 450 m3.s-1, coupled with the release of
2,000 m3.s-1), the capacity of the derivation canal is exceeded, and water is released into the
old Drava river bed. (Figure 29)

Figure 29: Overgrowing gravel beds in the old Drava river bed at Varadin, caused by the decline of throughflow
to the derivation canal.

Decrease of retention space. The retention volume of accumulations is limited due to


constant electricity production, keeping the water at the maximum level. As a rule, this
volume is not larger than the original extent of the floodplain. On the other hand, assuming
that the flood is predicted on time, the retention capacity can be enlarged by water

36
manipulation. The mitigation effect on larger floods is limited, which is clearly visible in
Figure 30, taken during the floods of 2012.

Figure 30: Extensive flood down to the Dubrava reservoir in 2012 (Photo: Darko Grlica).

Decreased attractiveness for recreation. Adverse bank structure (Figure 30) allows access to water
only in the areas of inflow. As a result, the attractiveness for tourists is low, and cannot be compared
to the original river corridor.

Figure 31: akovec reservoir dam with the outlet to the derivation canal (right), and the old Drava river bed
(left).

Loss of connectivity for fish populations. Fish passages, which were built at the same time as the
accumulations (Figure 32), have not provided sufficient alternative for fish migration (Mrakovi et
al., 2006; Witkowski et al., 2013). As a result, HEPP Dubrava represents the upper end of the Drava
river section in which fish can migrate without limitations.

37
Figure 32: Fish passage at the akovec reservoir. Weak current at the inlet may not attract fish sufficiently to
enter the passage. High slope (right) results in low efficiency of this device.

Impact of proposed HEPP on the PSA and the lower Drava

The proposed HEPP system on the Drava River (Figure 6 on page 17) has been designed in several
versions (including, for instance, HEPP Novo Virje in the past). The latest version consists of the
proposal for HEPP Molve 1 (Figure 33), and HEPP Molve 2 and VHS Osijek (Figure 34). The technical
parameters are shown in Table 3 (on page 41), including a comparison with the technical parameters
of existing HEPPs.6

HEPPs Molve 1 and 2 are envisaged as run-of-the-river hydroelectric stations, i.e. stations with small
or no reservoir capacity. This typology is not clear, because the area of accumulations reaches 870
and 1,006 ha (volume data is not available). The head should be at about 6 m, so one should assume
that the whole extent of accumulation will be flooded permanently (with oscillations of water level
due to the peak regime). In general terms, typical run-of-the-river hydroelectric stations have a lower
impact on river ecology; however, the proposed projects should rather be classified as a transient
type between the run-of-the-river and classical hydroelectric stations.

6
Aleri, S. et al. (2012): Program iskoritenja slobodnog hidropotencijala u Republici Hrvatskoj. Hrvatska
komora inenjera graevinarstva, Zagreb-Opatija.
Hrvatska elektoprivreda d.d., Sektor za strategiju, planiranje investicija i korporativni razvoj (2013): Podloga za
izradu prostornih planova. Opis HE Molve 1 i HE Molve 2.
Vienamjenski hidrotehniki sustav Osijek (2012): Studija Projekt vie struka. Studija utjecaja na okoli i
ekoloku mreu, Osjeko-baranjska upanija, Osijek.

38
F

Figure 33: VHS Osijek extent of accumulation. From: Vienamjenski hidrotehniki sustav Osijek (2012), HEP
study.

Figure 34: HEPP Molve 1 and 2 extent of accumulation. Aleri, S. et al. (2012): Program iskoritenja slobodnog
hidropotencijala u Republici Hrvatskoj. Hrvatska komora inenjera graevinarstva, Zagreb-Opatija.

All projects are presented as multipurpose projects (see footnotes on page 39), with the following
benefits:

Flood protection
Stabilisation of the Drava river bed
Electricity production
Protection of the surroundings provision of both surface water and underground water of
good quality
Opening of the possibilities of preserving and restoring natural assets on the Drava River
Recreation and sports
Transportation
Agriculture, fishery

39
Technical comparison of proposed and existing hydroelectric power plants (HEPPs) on the Drava
River.

The proposed and existing HEPPs (Production Area Hydropower Plants North PAHPP North) on the
Drava River in Croatia have been compared in terms of their selected technical parameters relevant
for the environmental impact of the construction.

A simple formula for approximating electric power production of a hydroelectric plant is:
, where:

is the power in watts;


is the density of water (~1000 kg/m3);
is the height in meters;
is the flow rate in cubic meters per second;
is the acceleration due to gravity of 9.8 m/s2;
is the coefficient of efficiency, ranging from 0 to 1. Efficiency is often higher (i.e. closer to
1) with larger and more modern turbines.

The height in metres, also stated as head, depends of the difference of water level between the
accumulation and the turbine inflow. To get a sufficiently high head in a relatively flat countryside,
where the river slope is small, it is necessary to build reasonably long accumulations in order to
ensure substantial water surface above the level of the surrounding terrain, or to combine
accumulation with the derivation canal, where the head can be increased via the positioning of the
power plant in this canal. Such a solution also requires lateral dams, which influence the cost of
investment and make this type of HPP less economically favourable than the HPPs situated in steep
valleys (canyons).

Because the proposed HEPPs are situated in river segments with lower slopes (when compared to
PAHPP North), and they do not have derivation canals, they have to be relatively longer (14, 15 and
35 km, whereas PAHPP North accumulations are 3, 8 and 10 km long) and larger in area (5,616 ha
compared with 3,069 ha; Table 3). Despite these construction projects, the total installed power of
114 MW represents only 46% of PAHPP North (246 MW).

As a consequence of these technical solutions, one can conclude that the proposed HEPPs would
require larger areas of floodplain ecosystems to be altered, when compared with the HEPP North.
We can roughly estimate such impact from the length of the river that would be lost under the
accumulations, or from the area of the floodplain ecosystem that would be destroyed. This impact
would not be compensated by higher electricity production; quite to the contrary, the installed
electricity production is substantially lower due to the geomorphological limitations.

Table 3: Comparison of technical parameters of existing accumulations of PAHPP North and the proposed
accumulations on the river Drava in Croatia.

40
Technical data of Drava Hydroelectricity power plants
Parameter Value Unit
HE Varadin Location 309-298 river km HE Molve 1 213
Area 259 ha 870
Length, width 3x1 km 12,6 x 0,7
Volume at average throughflow 8 mil.m3
Head 20-24 m 5,85
Installed power 2 x 47 (94) MW 47
Annual average production 435 GWh 235
HE akovec Location 288-267 river km HE Molve 2 199
Area 1150 ha 1006
Length, width 8,6 km 14,2 x 0,7
Volume at average throughflow 51 mil.m3
Head 16-19 m 6,30
Installed power 2 x 38 (76) MW 51
Annual average production 340 GWh 248
HE Dubrava Location 267 - 242 river km VHS Osijek 29 - 65
Area 1660 ha 3740
Length, width 10,2 km 35,5 x 1
Volume at average throughflow 93,5 mil.m3 190
Head 16-20 m 3.3 - 7.4
Installed power 2 x 38 (76) MW 16,3
Annual average production 340 GWh 237,4
PPHE north in Installed power 246 MW Proposed HE 114,3
total Annual average production 1428 GWh in total 720,4
Total area 3069 ha 5616

The impact of proposed HEPPs on biodiversity and ecosystem services will be the subject of the
following chapters.

3.3. Alternative scenarios for ES evaluation in PSA

For the purpose of ES evaluation in comparison with alternative development opportunities for the
PSA, three scenarios have been defined:

A state as-is

B state with hydropower accumulations

C state of sustainable use

3.2.1. State as-is

This scenario corresponds to the present state of the PSA, and it is described in previous sections. It
should be understood having in mind the present trends, given the fact that it includes the
deepening of the Drava river bed, and the consequential decrease of floodplain forest growth.

41
3.2.2. State with hydropower accumulations

The position of HEPP Molve 1 and 2 is shown on Figure 33, and its technical parameters are provided
in Table 3. The variety of impacts of this scenario on floodplain ecosystems and ecosystem services
will be described in the following chapters.

3.3.3. State of sustainable use

This scenario is based on measures aimed at the harmonisation of ecosystem services, economic
development and nature protection. This scenario is based on the following:

Extension of the area of active floodplain, i. e. the inundation zone, into the areas that
contain the original and still preserved floodplain land cover (wetlands, meadows and
floodplain forests). This extension and land cover changes are not related to the ownership
structure, and no assessment has been done about the feasibility of this scenario; however,
it corresponds to the proposed LIFE project (Michor et al., 2013); Figure 35.

Support to extensive agriculture management (grazing, hey production);

Improved access for visitors and support to tourism.

Figure 35: Location of Molve 1 and Molve 2 accumulations (scenario B), the present inundation zone
(scenario A), and the extended inundation zone (scenario C).

42
4. Meetings with relevant stakeholders and experts

Stakeholders have been identified for the purposes of contacting them, and they have been asked to
participate in the process of analyzing the use of services and benefits of the river and floodplain
ecosystems. They have also been asked about their opinions and attitudes to the proposed
development projects. Given the fact that electricity production was not taken into account as an
ecosystem service in this study (because of the need for total alteration of the existing ecosystem
that all other services are related to), HEP was not included as a typical stakeholder.

The following set of meetings with stakeholders and relevant experts took place:

State institutions national level

Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection April 2013; April 2014 introduction of SFES,
support of the Ministry, establishment of regular reporting about the project progress; incentives and
subsidies in the floodplain area, study presentation and finalisation.

Croatian Waters, Zagreb, July 17, 2013. Present: Zoran urokovi, B.Sc.C.E, Head of the Flood
Defence Department; M.Sc. Sanja Barbali, Head of the Water Management Institute; Darko Barbali,
B.Sc.C.E and Vesna Grizelj imi, B.Sc.C.E from the Development Sector; Nataa Tomi-Strelec,
B.Sc.C.E and Tomislav lehta, B.Sc.C.E from the Water Management Department Varadin; Samra
Poli, B.Sc.C.E and Tomislav Novosel. Flood protection aspects, floods in Croatia trends, risks.

SINP, Zagreb, June 27, 2013. Present: Biljana Bari, B.Sc.Biol. (Senior Advisor, Department for Nature
Impact Assessment SEE River Project) - Project for Sustainable Integrated Management of
International River Corridors in SEE Countries.

SINP, Zagreb, July 16, 2013. Present: M.Sc.Vet.Med. Jasna Jeremi, Head of the Domesticated Taxa
Section, Department for Wild and Domesticated Taxa and Habitats. Indigenous breeds in Croatian
floodplains.

SINP, Zagreb, July 17, 2013. Present: M.Sc.Geol. Neven Trenc, Head of the Evaluation of Admissibility
of Intervention to Nature Section, Department for Nature Impact Assessment. Hydrogeomorphology
of river Drava and impact of HPP Varadin.

SINP, Zagreb, July 18, 2013. Present: Vida Posavec Vukeli, M.Biol. Head of the Flora Section; dr.sc.
Igor Bori, Expert Advisor, Department for Wild and Domesticated Taxa and Habitats. Botanical
aspects of PSA Molve.

SINP, Zagreb, July 19, 2013. Present: M.Sc. Vlatka Dumbovi Mazal, Head of the Vertebrates Section,
Department for Wild and Domesticated Taxa and Habitats. Ornithological aspects of PSA Molve.

SINP, Zagreb, July 19, 2013. Present: Aljoa Dupli, M.Ed., Head of the Introduction and
Reintroduction Section, Department for Nature Impact Assessment. Ichthyological aspects of PSA
Molve.

Institute for tourism and the Ministry of Tourism, Zagreb, February 6, 2014. Present: Dr.sc. Hrvoje
Cari (Institute for Tourism) and M.Ec. Jelena obat (Head of the Departement for Protection of

43
Tourism Resources and Sustainable Development in the Ministry of Tourism) Ecotourism issue in
continental Croatia.

State institutions regional level

Croatian Waters Varadin, Varadin, June 2013. Present: Emil Flajman, B.Sc.Biol. (Biologist, Croatian
Waters, branch office Varadin) monitoring of water quality in Varadin County, data acquisition,
functioning of existing hydropower reservoirs, maintenance of old Drava river bed, hydrological
monitoring.

HEP Proizvodnja Ltd PP HE Sjever, Varadin, June 2013. Present: Ivanica Somoi, B.Sc.C.E.
(Environmental Coordinator) positive and negative impact of Varadin reservoirs on environment
and people, water manipulation in the system, sediment deposition, water quality, environmental
activities of HEP, functioning of hydropower accumulations. Full day excursion around the lakes,
technical facilities, flood experience, recreation at the reservoirs.

Agricultural Advisory Service, Branch-office of Koprivnica-Krievci County in Krievci, June 20, 2013.
Present: Slavko Kopilovi, B.Sc.Agr. (Head of the Branch Office in Krievci) Prospect of agriculture in
Koprivnica-Krievci County.

Croatian Forests (CF), Regional forestry office in Repa, Repa, June 18, 2013. Present: Zvonimir
Itvan, B.Sc.in Forestry (Head of the Forestry office in Repa) and urica List, B.Sc. in Forestry (Head
of the Forest Ecology Department in the Forestry Admistration in Koprivnica) - Forest management,
sustainability, impact of HP Molve.

CF, Regional forestry office in Varadin, Varadin, June 18, 2013, Present: Mario Vlai, B.Sc. in
Forestry (Head), Zvonko Kranjc B.Sc. in Forestry (Forester) Forest management, sustainability,
impact of HPP Molve.

Croatian Sport Angling Union, Association of Sport Angling Clubs (ASAC) in urevac, urevac, June
21, 2013. Present: Ivica Vrabec (President) and Sinia Filipovi (Secretary) Fish angling in Drava
River, impact of the proposed HPP Molve.

CW (Hrvatske vode), Zagreb, July 17, 2013. Present: M.Sc. Marija Marjanovi Raji, Head of the
Central Water Management Laboratory. Water chemistry and quality monitoring and reporting.

Regional administrative and local inhabitants

Institute of Physical Planning Koprivnica-Krievci County, Koprivnica, May 2013. Present: M.Sc.
Mladen Matica (Assistant Director) future visions for Koprivnica-Krievci County, positive and
negative impacts of planned hydropower plants on environment and people, need of sustainable
development strategies, GIS data sources.

Public Institution for Management of Protected Areas in the Varadin County, Varadin, May 2013.
Present: Sanja Kopjar, B.Sc.Agr. (Head of Expertise department) history and functioning of the
Regional Park Mura-Drava, nature protection, positive and negative impacts.

Molve local inhabitants, Molve, June and July 2013. Present: Tihomir Jakopovi (member of family
providing private accommodation in Molve) social problems in the Molve area, sustainable

44
development of the area and its future prospects, costs and benefits of hydropower projects for the
local community. Zdravko Ivanan Mag.ing. (Agriculture Engineer, candidate for the Head of the
Municipality Molve) prospects of sustainable development.

Molve catholic parish: Molve, May and June 2013: Tomislav Glavnik, OFM Conv (catholic priest in
Molve) social problems in the Molve area, sustainable development of the area, modernisation of
agriculture, irrigation, use of renewable energy sources, benefits of hydropower projects for the local
community.

Municipality of Molve, Molve, June 21, 2013. Present: Zdravko Ivanan (Mayor), Nevenko Jakopovi
(President of the Hunting Union of Koprivnica-Krievci County), Mijo Kovaek (Head of the Angling
Club aran in Molve), Mirko Paa (Mayor Deputy) attitude of the Municipality to the planned HPP
Molve, hunting and angling in PSA, sustainable development in the Molve area.

Naive Art Gallery Hlebine, Hlebine, June 24, 2013. Present: Sanja Vrgo (museum technician) naive
art and its inspiration in Drava Floodplain ecosystems, economic importance of naive art.

Non-government organisations and independent experts

NGO Prirodoslovno drutvo Drava. Ivan Darko Grlica, Virovitica, April 2013, March 2014 Flood
dynamics, flood mitigation of the Drava river in Koprivnica-Krievci County, nature values and
protection, illegal cottages at the river, present river management and its alternatives.

UNDP, Zagreb, April 2013. Present: mr.sc. Sandra Vlai (Programme Officer) project introduction
and progress, sustainable development in Croatia, renewable energy sources, social aspects in rural
areas.

UNDP-Croatia, Zagreb, June 19, 2013, Present: M.Sc. Robert Paiko (Project Development Specialist)
renewable energy production in Croatia, prospects for PSA.

CEE Bankwatch, Prague, July 3. 2013. Present: Petr Hlobil construction aspects of the proposed
hydroelectric power plants on Drava River.

Goran afarek, B.Sc.Biol. (Freelance Biologist, various NGOs, Koprivnica), Molve, June 22, 2013 and
March 2014 Drava River floodplain, possible prospects for its future, ecosystem services.

Mijo Kovai (painter), Gornja uma near Molve, June 24, 2013 naive art and its inspiration in
Drava Floodplain ecosystems, economic importance of naive art.

Private companies

Komatnica Horse Riding Club, Komatnica, June 22, 2013 sustainable tourism in the Molve area.

Universities

Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, April 2013. Present: prof. dr. sc. Milorad Mrakovi
(Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb), dr. sc. Marko aleta (Assistent Professor, Faculty of

45
Education, University of Zagreb) hydrobiological monitoring of Varadin reservoirs, impact on fish
communities, water quality in Varadin reservoirs, angling.

Faculty of Forestry, Zagreb, June 2013. Present: dr. sc. Stjepan Mikac (Senior Assistant Research
Fellow) floodplain forest management, monitoring of underground waters, impact of underground
water levels on wood increment and timber production. Alternative scenarios for ES evaluation in
PSA.

5. Ecosystem services of DSDF and PSA


5.1. Identification of relevant ecosystem services

Ecosystem services relevant and/or important for Drava-Sava-Danube floodplain (DSDF) ecosystems
and the PSA have been indicated and formulated during the stakeholder meetings and the final
brainstorming session in SINP, and are listed in Table 4. Ecosystem services are divided according to
the classification used in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Among the ecosystem
services identified as relevant, eight have been chosen for evaluation. Those not evaluated were in
the end omitted for a variety of reasons, but mainly because of inaccessible data (carbon
sequestration), unclear methodology (air purification, climate stabilisation), or simply because of
time constraints and limited financial resources for this study. Electricity production was not taken
into account as an ecosystem service in this study (because of the need for total alteration of the
existing ecosystem that all other services are related to).
During the stakeholder meetings, we discovered that timber production is the most clearly perceived
ecosystem service. That is due to the fact that decrease of that service is detectable, it has an
economic impact, and it is understood as an ecosystem service i.e. it is connected with the state of
the river and interconnected underground water dynamics.

46
Table 4: Ecosystem services identified as relevant for DSDF and PSA.

List of Ecosystem services relevant for Drava Sava Danube Floodplains

Ecosystem service Highly Not


relevant Relevant Evaluated evaluated

Flood mitigation
Balance of erosion and acumulation
Nutrient retention and water self purification

Regulating

Carbon sequestration
Local climate regulation
Air purification
Draught mitigation, water storage
Supporting

Habitat and biodiversity provision


Biocorridor provision
Timber production
Biomass energy
Fish production
Provisioning

Game animals production


Drinking water supply
Irrigation water supply
Agriculture production
Estetic value of landscape
Recreation/Tourism
Cultural

Naive art inspiration


Raw material for local crafts
Habitats for indigenous breeds

5.2. Evaluation of particular ecosystem services

5.2.1. Regulating ecosystem services

5.2.1.1.Flood mitigation

Definition of service, its importance and relevance for the ecological status

Flood mitigation is the ability of ecosystem to decrease the flood hazards by transforming the flood
wave. A prerequisite of this function is overbank flow; i.e. the possibility of flooding within the
floodplain area. Other parameters, like river bed structure or route, cease to have an impact on
larger flood dynamics. The parameters of flood dynamics, which can be influenced by the floodplain
ecosystem (or any man-made retention space), include the value of maximum discharge (peak of the

47
flood wave in the hydrogram) and time shift (delay) of maximum discharge. The most important
factors influencing peak reduction include the slope, width and roughness of floodplain (Habersack et
al., 2013). Within the schematic floodplain model, doubling the width of the floodplain results in
changes to peak reduction of approximately 25%; change in roughness (light shrubbery to dense
willows) results in peak reduction of up to 50% (Habersack et al., 2013). Whereas the slope is
constant for any given river section, the width of the active floodplain is frequently determined by
dyke position (Figure 1 on page 10) and the roughness of the vegetation cover. These parameters
also have an effect on flood wave translation (water retardation), which is important in flood risk
management because of the prolongation of time required for the preparation for flood (Valentov
et al., 2010). Both of these latter parameters can be influenced by the river and floodplain planning
and management.

If the flood mitigation effect is expressed as a percentage of lowering the peak discharge per one
kilometre, floodplains of the similar character as DSDF can reach up to 2.25 % (the value of that
indicator is 1.64 % HQ100 flat type at the 40 km section of the upper Danube to Vienna near
Tullnerfeld; Schober et al., 2013). Dostl et al. (2013) calculated this effect for three floodplains in the
Czech Republic, with the values for Q100 in the range of 0.2% to 0.6%. These calculations show that a
sufficiently long section of floodplain with the mitigation potential can remarkably reduce the peak
discharge.

Good ecological state of floodplain is mostly corresponding with the flood mitigation potential,
because ecosystem connectivity is ensured in case that flood pulses reach the floodplain area; it is
beneficial if agriculture management in the area is adapted to regular inundation.

The economic importance of flood protection is growing with climate change. The need to mitigate
hydrological extremes is growing rapidly, and using ecosystems as a tool for such mitigation is in
accordance with the EU Floods Directive 2007/60/EC, requiring space for rivers and the use of near-
nature measures to tackle this problem (Pedersen et al., 2007).

Situation in DSDF and PSA

DSDF area includes relatively large and preserved floodplain areas, where the floods can be mitigated
(Figure 8 on the page 19). Brundi et al. (2001) evaluated the central Sava basin and quantified the
potential of both the existing and planned sub-basins, in terms of their area and volume (116,775 ha;
2,124 billion m3), which makes this area the largest floodplain ecosystem in the Danube river basin.
The largest complexes include Kopaki rit, Odransko polje, Lonjsko polje (23,700 ha; storage capacity
634 billion m3), Mokro polje (22,294 ha; storage capacity 611 billion m3), Kupina (22,242 ha; 203
billion m3), and the lower section of the Drava River upstream of Osijek, where the dykes keep their
distance from the river and form a corridor 2.5-3.5 km wide. Babtist et al. (2006) compared the
present state and two different plans of enlargement and operation of the Lonjsko polje detention
system, which also includes the proposed derivation canal protecting the capital city of Zagreb from
extreme floods, and they concluded that this system is advanced at the European level, and that it
may serve as an example of good practice for other countries.

48
Figure 36: Flood storage capacities in Gajna nature reserve near Slavonski Brod, April 2012.

Applying the FEM method (floodplain evaluation matrix; Habersack et al., 2013), it can be concluded
that DSDF areas are mostly floodplains with a good potential of flood mitigation along their entire
stretches. This is the consequence of combination of their low slope, large width and high roughness
(with preserved floodplain forests in core zones). This is also the case with the floodplain in the PSA
(Figure 1 on page 10 and Figure 12 on page).

When it comes to the hydrological regime of the rivers Drava, Sava and Danube, one should note
that the rivers Sava and Danube have a pluvio-nival regime, with the discharge that peaks in winter
and spring. The Drava River has a nivalo-pluvial regime, with peaks in summer. Extreme discharges
are driven by the precipitation upstream, in Austria and Slovenia, with the precipitation in Croatia
being of minor importance.

Drava hydrological regime is strongly influenced by a set of hydropower accumulations 3 in Croatia,


8 in Slovenia and 12 in Austria.
Flood risks around the Drava, Sava and Danube rivers are not very high, given the fact that village
settlements mostly respect the extent of inundation, while the towns such as Varadin and Osijek are
relatively well protected. The river segment without dykes is also naturally protected, and one
cannot argue that the settlements in such areas are more vulnerable, because the houses are built
on naturally elevated sites.

However, possible enlargement of active floodplain (inundation zone) is being considered by the
Croatian Waters. Some cut-off meanders might be reconnected and revitalised, which could result in
an enlargement of inundation. That would be in accordance with the European policy more space
for the river. The replacement of dykes should also be considered in the future.
During the meeting with the representatives of the Croatian Waters, these representatives expressed
the opinion that the river Drava is in a good state, both ecologically and in terms of the preparation
for hydrological extremes; therefore, it should be taken into account as part of the natural heritage,
and preserved in such state.

49
Mitigation of the flood of 7th November 2012 on the Drava River

In November 2012, extensive flood wave came from the upper Drava section (in Austria and
Slovenia). At its inflow to Croatia, the discharge of the Drava River was 2,800 m3.s-1; however, after
the partial transformation in the Varadin accumulation, it was reduced by reservoirs and intersected
floodplains (around the old Drava river bed) to 2,000 m3.s-1. The duration of the flood wave was not
long (it lasted one day), so the flood wave was gradually mitigated to harmless discharges, and did
not cause substantial damage. Down to the Dubrava accumulation, the flood wave was still extreme,
having the peak discharge of 1,639 m3.s-1 at the Donja Dubrava profile (Figure 36). After the
confluence with the Mura River (Figure 37), peak discharge increased to 1,925 m3.s-1 at the Botovo
bridge profile. Since that time and profile, the peak discharge was gradually lowering (Figure 38) to
70% of its value, which was measured at Belie with five days delay (Table 5). After that, the flood
wave outflow moved in the direction of the largest storage area on the Drava River, Kopaki rit.

Table 5: Flood mitigation along the Drava River, reaching 30% decrease in 5 days delay at 172 rkm; November
7-12, 2012. Source: Croatian Waters, raw data.

Flood mitigation Peak Discharge Unit Date river km


Botovo 1925 m3/s 7 11 2012 226
Belie 1364 m3/s 12 11 2012 54
Lowering of the peak 30 %
Flood wave translation 5 days
River km 172 km
Lowering of the peak per km 0,17 %

Figure 37: Flood of November 7, 2012, under the Dubrava reservoir (rkm 241). Selnica Podravska village can be
seen in the front (Photo: Darko Grlica).

50
Figure 38: Flood of November 7, 2012 dykes at the confluence of Mura and Drava (rkm 237) in the front
(Photo: Darko Grlica).

Figure 39: Flood mitigation along the Drava river, showing the peak discharges at monitoring profiles and peak
discharge days. Photo below left flood under Dubrava on 7th November. Upper right the Drava River at
Ferdinandovac on the day before the flood came (Photo: Darko Grlica).

51
Figure 40: Flood of November 7, 2012, river km 220 extended floodplain with a large flood storage capacity,
near Sigetec (Photo: Darko Grlica).

Figure 41: Hydrogram of the flood wave on the Drava River for November 2012. The transformation of the
flood from the profile at Botovo to Belie took place via the lowering of the peak by 30% and translation for 5
days.

The dynamics of the flood of November 2012 clearly show the effectiveness of Drava floodplains in
the lowering of peak discharge and the translation of the flood wave (Figure 37). Sufficient flood
storage capacities and a high level of roughness (Figure 38) are prerequisites for this ecosystem
service.

52
Figure 42: Flood of November 7, 2012, rkm 207; photographed downstream of the Repa bridge. High
roughness of the floodplain surface positively influences the flood wave translation (Photo: Darko Grlica).

There is no doubt that different sections (compartments) of the river and its floodplain contributed
to the final transformation in highly diverse ways (Schober et al., 2013), and that proper evaluation
should distinguish between these areas in order to define the most important flood storage
capacities, so as to protect them or enlarge their capacity.

Quantification of flood storage capacity and economic evaluation

Proper evaluation of the floodplain mitigation effect should be done via 1D, rather than 2D
hydrological modelling (Dostl et al., 2013, Valentov et Valenta, 2003). This requires a 3D model of
terrain and specialised software (David et Dostl, 2013); however, such an analysis would be outside
of the scope of this study. For that reason, we focused on calculating the area and volume of
inundation zones in the PSA for scenarios A and C, together with Molve 1 and Molve 2 accumulations
for scenario B.

In scenario C, we extended the floodplain in the PSA by a virtual transfer of dykes to the areas where:

1. Land cover was formed by wetlands, standing waters, or meadows


2. There were sharp curves of dykes, which were smoothed
3. There were no settlements (Figure 38). The area of inundation increased from 3,811 ha in
scenario A to 4,617 ha in scenario C (Table 6 on page 56).

53
Figure 43: Extended floodplain in scenario C. The existing dykes are in brown, and they delineate the extent of
the floodplain in scenario A; extended dykes are in violet.

To calculate the areas, we obtained data on the extent of inundation zones (Source: Croatian Waters,
2013) (Figure 43); the depth of inundation was estimated from the longitudinal profile of the Drava
River as a difference between the basic water level and the water level for regulation (capacity of the
river bed), and as a difference between the water level for regulation and the height of banks and
dykes (capacity of inundation).

For economic evaluation, we used the shadow project method, based on the comparison with the
cost of technical structure (the proposed accumulation) that would provide a comparable flood
storage volume in Croatia. We took into account the cost of retention of cubic meter in the planned
VHS Osijek (the cost of the whole project without the electric power station, i.e. including land
purchase), which is at 2,269 million HRK (408 million USD). The proposed total volume is 190 million
m3. The retention volume is not stated in this study; this volume also depends on the manipulation
order and on the particular situation in a given moment. Providing that the manipulation can
decrease the volume to 50% of the total volume (which is a very optimistic scenario, given the fact
that the available volume would be much lower due to the need to produce electricity), we can
assume that the retention volume would be 95 million m3 (Vienamjenski hidrotehniki sustav
Osijek, 2012). In such a case, the cost of storage in this accumulation would be 4.29 USD per m3. By
comparison, the median cost per m3 in polders in the Czech Republic is 7.1 USD (ern, 2011). The
costs vary very much based on the size and technical components of the project.

Dividing the total value by area and discount rate (Sejk et al., 2003), we can also express the value in
the form of monetary flow per hectare per year (Table 6).

54
Inundation scenario A

Inundation scenario C
Scenario A in total

Scenario C in total
River bed storage

VHS Osijek
Scenario B
Area (ha) 3811 706 3811 1876 4617 4617 3740
Max depth (m) 4 2 2,5 4 2,5
Volume (mil.m3) 152,4 14,1 166,6 46,9 184,7 198,8 93,5
3
Cost of m 3,17 3,17 3,17 3,17 3,17 3,17 3,17
-1 -1
Value .ha .yr 6340 3170 6927 3963 6340 6825 3963
-1 -1
Value $.ha .yr 4594 2297 5020 2871 4594 4945 2871
Total value mil. $ .yr-1 24,16 2,24 26,40 7,43 29,27 31,51 14,82

Table 6: Area, volume and value of ecosystem service flood mitigation in scenarios A, B and C. Note that the
numbers in red would be paid by taxpayers, whereas the values in black are obtained from the ecosystem in its
present state.

The comparison of volumes of inundation with volumes of accumulation can provide only an
approximate idea on how a particular flood can be transformed. The transformation in
accumulations is always managed by regulating the outflow maximising the outflow before the
expected peak discharge, and then minimizing it during the peak. Using this measure, the peaks of
floods can be sufficiently lowered. The efficiency of transformation depends on the time for
preparation, retention volume of the accumulation, and which is very important on the character
of the flood wave. With increasing length of the flood wave, effective manipulation of the discharge
will be increasingly limited. In addition, floodplain storage capacities can be fully used during long
floods; in such a case, the roughness of the floodplain can be an important factor in terms of slowing
down the movement of the flood wave.

The value of flood mitigation service, if expressed in monetary flow per ha per year (5,020 USD), is
comparable with the estimate of Costanza et. al. (1989, Table 1) for the service referred to as
disturbance regulation, which is evaluated at 7,240 USD on average. Pithart et al. (2010) evaluated
this service in a near nature preserved floodplain of the river Lunice at 12,000 USD; in both cases,
this service belongs to economically most important services in floodplains.

The evaluation of DSDF is outside of the scope of this study. The only figure available at the moment
is the area of inundation zones (1,588 km2) in DSDF. Calculation of the volume without a proper 3D
model of terrain could be misleading, and on top of that, as has been said, it would not necessarily
correspond with the real transformation effect. It is beyond dispute that the definition of important
storage capacities within DSDF, their protection and possible enlargement should constitute a
priority for future water management.

The floodplain inundations are also very important for groundwater recharge, as will be discussed in
Section 5.2.3. This process has not been studied in great detail, but it will surely be in the focus of
researchers given the climate change and continuous decrease of aquifer levels. Among the issues of

55
future high importance, we can also mention the comparison of groundwater recharge in floodplains
with permeable river bed and flood pulses with overbank flows, and groundwater recharge in the
area of reservoirs with bottom permeability colmated (blocked) by fine sediments.

5.2.1.2.Nutrient retention
Introduction. Nutrient retention is the ability of an ecosystem to store the excess of nutrients
(nitrogen and/or phosphorus) via biological, biochemical and geochemical processes in biomass
(both living and dead) and soil mineral compounds (Turner et al., 2008). Slowing down the adverse
nutrient transport within the watershed by nutrient retention provides the benefit of improving the
water quality downstream and preventing the eutrophication process in rivers and their recipients
(lakes, reservoirs and seas). Wetlands and natural floodplains are reported as important nutrient
sinks, but their capacity to store nutrients is limited; if the potential is exceeded, such areas can be
degraded, coupled with the release of nutrients.

Nutrient retention in rivers and floodplains depends on their geomorphological and ecological state.
Contact of water with surfaces such as gravel, sand and plants is crucial, as well as sufficient delay of
water in flood detention areas. Overbank flows cause remarkable decrease of flow velocity and
sedimentation of suspended particles (Figure 44), which may in turn serve as a natural fertilizer for
floodplain meadows. The sufficient delay allows the growth of periphytic algae (Figure 45), which
take up nutrients from the water and complete the sedimentation of all suspended particles (Figure
46). Succession stages of vegetation growth enable natural absorption of available nutrients:
Kiedrzynska et al. (2008) quantified the increase of TP retention after the planting of fast growing
patches of willows at 30%.

The overall nutrient balance in natural floodplains and floodplains converted to agriculture may be
totally different. Pedersen et al. (2007) quantified the nutrient transport before and after
revitalisation (conversion of agriculture floodplain into wetland areas) on the Danish river Skjern (a
40 km segment). Before revitalisation, the annual discharge of TN of this entire floodplain was 132
tN.year-1 and 10.6 tP.year-1; after the revitalisation, the discharge was negative i.e. retention was 13
tN.year-1 and 5 tP.year-1, which represents approx. 10% of the annual river transport.

56
Figure 44: Fine sediment deposition of river suspended sediment on the surface of Drava floodplain near
Molve.

Figure 45: Periphytic algae overgrowing the surfaces of flooded plant vegetation. The growth of these algae
requires dissolved nutrients from water, and represents a component of self-purification system. After the
retreat of flood, the algal biomass will be incorporated into the floodplain soil. Posavina, April 2014.

Figure 46: Standing water after complete sedimentation (compare Figure 45 left) during spring inundation, with
growing freshwater algae mats. Posavina, April 2014.

Situation in DSDF. The Danube River is an important source of Black Sea pollution. High nutrient
loads and their consequences have been recognised in a number of studies and articles. Schreiber
(2005) quantified the total emission of the Danube to the Black Sea as 756 kt TN.year-1 and 68
ktP.year-1. The proportion of background natural emission constitutes only about 10% of this
amount, pointing to the fact that human activities are remarkable drivers behind this transport. The
Croatian rivers Drava and Sava belong to important contributors, due to their high annual water
discharges. Their average water quality classifies them into the second water quality class (individual
sections of the Sava River are on the border between the second and the third class), according to
Croatian water quality standards7. The negative impact of transformed floodplain segments

7
Izvjetaj o stanju povrinskih voda u Republici Hrvatskoj u 2010. i 2011. godini. (Source: Croatian Waters).

57
(including intensive agriculture and reduced active floodplain down from Terezino Polje to
Vinjevac, and in the Varadin area as well) are illustrated in Figure 47.

Figure 47: Annual course of ammonia nitrogen, nitrites and total phosphorus (top), and nitrates and total
nitrogen (bottom) on profiles of the Drava River in 20108.

There is an overall agreement among all the countries concerning the nutrient loads from the
Danube basin to the Black Sea: all Danube river basin countries contribute nutrient loads to the Black
Sea, as demonstrated by the results of various water quality model simulations (Figure 48). Pollution
reduction is a common task of all Danube river basin countries9. This means that all countries agree
to strengthen their efforts in order to implement the necessary steps for reduction of water
pollution, not limited to the local hot spots, but also covering the reduction of water pollution by
nutrients which have adverse transboundary effects and a negative impact on the water quality in
the Black Sea (Niemayer et al., 1999).

8
Izvjestaj o stanju povrinskih voda u Republici Hrvatskoj u 2010. i 2011. godini. (Source: Croatian Waters) .
9 Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable use of the Danube River (Danube River protection Convention, 2008).

58
Figure 48: Segments of the Danube basin rivers according to nutrient pollution (Niemayer et al., 1999).

In order to reduce nutrient loads in the Danube basin, the preservation and restoration of wetlands
represent one of the principal tools (together with investments in wastewater cleaning stations,
etc.), and international strategies have also been developed (Niemayer et al., 1999). The
Transboundary Analysis Workshop identified Significant Impact Areas in the Danube river basin
(Niemayer et al., 1999), as areas that are most intensively receiving pollution emissions, and are
valuable from an environmental and/or conservation point of view. So far, 51 Significant Impact
Areas have been identified, including the Croatian transboundary areas Gemenc-Kopaki rit (1,980
km2), Middle Drava (450 km2), Lower Mura Drava (1,410 km2), Middle Sava Kupa (2,820 km2), Middle
Sava Una and Vrbas (1,770 km2) and Lower Sava (1,320 km2), with the total surface of newly
proposed wetlands at 262,000 ha.

Quantification of nutrient retention. Retention of nutrients is quantified by means of direct


measurements of annual balances and the use of various models, including calibrated models and
models used in combination with direct measurements. Usually, the amount of transported nutrients
in a river is based on regular monitoring, with the modelling of lateral inflows. Revitalised segment of
the river Skjern floodplain in Denmark (Pedersen et al., 2007) had the retention of 3-4 kg TP.ha-1.year-
1
and 90 kgTN. ha-1.year-1. Pithart (2013) estimated the retention in the floodplain of the river Lunice
(Czech Republic) at 3 kg TP.ha-1.year-1 and 66kgTN. ha-1.year-1, and Babtist et al. (2006) modelled the
retention in the Lonjsko polje flood retention area (237 km2) at 31 kg TP.ha-1.year-1 (using different
retention times under the scenario in a plan from 1972 (UNDO, 1972), the result was 19 kg TP.ha-
1
.year-1). Finally, Gren et al. (1995), reviewing different studies, proposed the values of 100-150 kgTN.
ha-1.year-1 and 10-20 kg TP.ha-1.year-1 for wetlands and natural floodplains in the Danube basin. This

59
estimation was used for the study Evaluation of Wetlands and Floodplain Areas in the Danube River
Basin (1999), as well as for all the calculations in the Danube pollution reduction programme
(Niemayer, 1999).

Economic evaluation. Economic evaluation can be performed by a variety of methods (Turner et al.,
2008), for instance via the replacement cost method (analysing the cost of artificial removal of
nutrients by wastewater treatment stations). Gren et al. (1995) estimate the economic value of this
ecosystem service at 250 USD/ha/year.

Results

For the purpose of this study, we used the economic evaluation according to Gren (1996), taking into
account the area of active floodplains delineated by inundation zones (Figure 8 on page 19 for DSDF
1,588 km2; Figure 35 on page 44 for PSA 3,811 ha for the as-is state, and 4,617 ha for the
extended inundation zone).

The analysis of these areas within the DSDF points to the value of nutrient retention as an ecosystem
service in the amount of 40 million USD per year. In the PSA, this indicator would be at 953,000 USD
for scenario A, and 1,28 million USD for scenario C.

To evaluate scenario B, we would need additional analyses based on the amount of transported
nutrients in the Drava River, discharges, and water residential time in the accumulation. The volume
of Molve 1 and Molve 2 accumulation is not at disposal, but it can be estimated from the area and
depth of the accumulation (Table 3). Water residential time would be approx. 2.7 days, which would
result in an approximated maximum TP retention of 8-17%, and TN retention of 1-3% (Hejzlar et al.,
2006). To compare retention in scenario B with scenarios A and C, more precise data on
morphological parameters of accumulations should be ensured, and the annual amount of nutrient
transport in Drava river should be calculated, which would require an additional specialised study.

5.2.1.3.Carbon sequestration
Carbon sequestration (this service can also be called carbon dioxide removal) is the ability of
ecosystem to uptake CO2 from the atmosphere during the process of photosynthesis. Carbon is
incorporated into the plant biomass and released during the reverse process, respiration. This carbon
cycle is crucial for climate stabilization; its misbalance (surplus of emissions over sequestration) is
reported as a main reason of climate change (Gore, 1993).

Ecosystems which can store carbon can be important carbon sinks wetland soil is an important
carbon sink; 14.5% of the worlds soil carbon is found in wetlands, while only 6% of the worlds land
is composed of wetlands (Nelson, 1999). Wet soils tend to accumulate carbon due to the limited
ability to mineralize the decomposing biomass. Also, growing forests incorporate carbon dioxide into
the wood biomass, which is a carbon sink. For these reasons, reforestation replanting of trees on
marginal crop and pasture lands has been proposed to incorporate carbon from atmospheric CO2
into biomass (Newell et Stavins, 2000). Reforestation with long-lived trees (>100 years) will sequester
carbon for a more gradual release, minimizing impact during the expected carbon crisis of the 21st
century.

While sustainable forest management may be neutral in terms of carbon sequestration emission
(harvested trees are replaced be growing new trees accumulating wood biomass with carbon),

60
irreversible deforestation can, on the other hand, cause carbon emission connected with the
conversion of stored carbon into carbon dioxide (both from wood and soil).

For precise evaluation of the source or sink character of an ecosystem, the annual balances of CO2
exchange between the ecosystem and atmosphere are being measured and modelled, for instance
by the eddy-covariance technique (Marek et al., 2011), which is not at disposal for the DSDF area.
Consequent economic evaluation can be done by evaluating the amount of sequestered carbon in
the ecosystem, using an analogy with the market of emission limits. However, forests and wetlands
are generally better carbon storages and/or sinks compared to lakes or reservoirs; hence, this service
would be positively influenced by scenario C, and negatively by B. To validate this presumption, a
more detailed study should be done.

5.2.2. Supporting ecosystem services

5.2.2.1. Habitat provision

Mapping of floodplain habitats

Due to the relatively preserved river and floodplain ecosystems, Croatian floodplains provide a
unique set of habitats (Annex 2) for a variety of endangered species (Schneider-Jacoby, 2004; Grlica
et Razlog-Grlica, 2007). The functional relationships and prerequisites for the existence and good
ecological state of these habitats, as well as their nature protection, are described in Section 2
Character, values and threats of Drava, Sava and Danube floodplains. For pictures of typical
floodplain habitats in lower Drava, see Section 3.2.

DSDF habitats are interconnected with various species which simultaneously form their structure and
get the environment suitable for their existence. Floodplains have also been understood as
ecosystem complexes, due to a variety of aquatic (both lentic and lotic, permanent or periodic),
semi-terrestrial and terrestrial habitats (ecosystems). Not surprisingly, these complexes support and
enable the occurrence of a number of protected and rare species.

Very diverse plant and algal communities occur in standing oxbows and braided river channels;
Wolfia arrhiza (Figure 49), Nymphaea alba, Stratiotes sp., Carex bohemica can be found in wetlands,
and rare Myricaria germanica on gravel bars (Grlica et Razlog-Grlica, 2007; Purger 2008.).

61
Figure 49: Tiny and rare aquatic plant Wollfia arrhiza near the Repa bridge on the Drava River in Molve area,
July 2014. Salvinia natans on the right.

A variety of habitats suitable for fish result in a very rich community: 65 species have been found in
the river Drava in total (Mrakovi et al., 2006). Some species' prosperity depends on preserved flood
pulses, such as the European mud-minnow (Umbra crameri), weatherfish (Misgurnus fossilis), crucian
carp (Carassius carassius). Others are dependent on gravel bars, such as zingel (Zingel zingel), streber
(Zingel streber) and Sabanejewia balcanica.

Birds are typical and most visible representatives of preserved DSDF ecological values. White tailed
eagle (Halietus albicilla) can be seen high above the river, while the rich community of waders,
herons and cormorants inhabit its banks: pygmy cormorant (Phalacrocorax pygmaeus), purple heron
(Ardea purpurea), great white egret (Egretta alba). Very endangered little tern (Sterna albifrons)
nests on gravel bars with other tern species and plowers; sand martin (Riparia riparia, Figure 50) and
kingfisher (Alcedo attis) nest in eroded steep banks, while bittern (Botaurus stellaris), black stork
(Ciconia nigra) and willow warbler (Phyloscopus trochilus) belong to the rarer wetland inhabitants.

62
Figure 50: Nesting colony of sand martin (Riparia riparia) on the lower Drava near Gotalovo.

Amphibians and mammals are also diverse, and we can mention at least the Danube crested newt
(Triturus dobrogicus), otter (Lutra lutra), beaver (Castor fiber), and pond bat (Myotis dasycneme)
among the rare and endangered species.

It is important to realise that most of the typical floodplain habitats evaluated in this chapter depend
on a specific water regime, characteristic for floodplains in a natural or semi-natural state. This
regime is mostly stated as flood pulse regime in ecological literature (Junk et al., 1989). Its
importance for wetlands (Middleton, 2002; kov, 2013) and river-floodplain (Bailey, 1991)
functioning and restoration is widely accepted (Pithart et al., 2013).

In the evaluation of habitats, the National Habitat Classification (Source: SINP, 2009) was the
principle source of information. Intersection of DSDF area and habitats shows the landscape
patterns, location and variety of floodplain habitats for a detailed view of Kopaki rit, see Figure 9
(on page 20); for other areas of DSDF, see Figures 51-54. Gravel bars in the PSA have been mapped
according to satellite images, in order to define their area (Figure 56).

63
Figure 51: Floodplain habitats in Posavina and Sava tributaries (Source: SINP, 2009).

Figure 52: Floodplain habitats in north-eastern Croatia. For legend, see Figure 51 (Source: SINP, 2009).

64
Figure 53: Floodplain habitats at the lower Drava and Danube. For legend, see Figure 51 (Source: SINP, 2009).

65
Figure 54: Floodplain habitats of the north-western part of the Drava River (Source: SINP, 2009).

Method of evaluation. For each habitat type, the area and its contribution to the total area of DSDF
were calculated (Table 7 on page 68). For evaluation, we used the so-called Hesen method (Sejk et.
al., 2003), reflecting the average cost of investments necessary for the creation of natural habitats.
First, each habitat was given a value in points according to the classification reflecting a set of
criteria, such as maturity, structural and species' diversity, habitat rareness, anthropogenic impact,
and vulnerability (Table 7). According to this classification, most valuable habitats are floodplain
forests; on the opposite end of the scale are anthropogenic habitats like intensively cultivated arable
fields or urbanised rural areas. Since such a national classification is not at disposal for Croatia, we
have used the Czech national classification (Sejk et al., 2003), given the fact that the Czech Republic
is a central European country with landscape and habitat types comparable with those that can been
found in northern Croatia.

For monetary evaluation, each point obtains a value (per unit of area), calculated on the basis of
average cost of accomplished revitalization projects, which increases the point value of the area via
the creation of more valuable biotopes. This value has been calculated at 0.62 USD per m2, on the
basis of analysing the cost of more than one hundred revitalisations in the Czech Republic.
Multiplying the area, value in points and monetary value of one point, and by applying the 5%
discount rate, we get the value of the habitat type (Table 7).
Table 7: Floodplain habitats in Croatia according to the national classification; area, contribution to floodplain
area (DSDF), point value and monetary value.

66
to DSDF area
Contribution
Value
Point total
Code Habitat name Area (ha) value mill.$
A11 Standing waters 17836 2,3 47 259,9
A23 Permanent watercourses 17455 2,3 52 281,4
Unvegetated and sparsely
vegetated banks of running
A27/A22 waters / Temporary watercourses 379 0,0 43 5,1
Unvegetated and sparsely
vegetated banks of running
waters / Temporary watercourses
A27/A22/A11 / Standing waters 733 0,1 45 10,2
Reed beds, tall sedges and tall
rushes / Mosaics of cultivated
A41/I21 areas 741 0,1 21 4,8
C22 Central Europe humid grasslands 57172 7,5 66 1169,7
Central Europe mesophilous
C23 grasslands 2406 0,3 33 24,6
Central Europe mesophilous
grasslands / Central Europe humid
grasslands / Mixed oak-hornbeam
C23/C22/E31 forests and hornbeam forests 13285 1,7 53 218,3

Willow thickets on dunes /


D11/E11 Alluvial willow forests 4527 0,6 52 73,0
Mesophilous hedges and thickets
of continental, exceptionally
D12 coastal areas 2537 0,3 33 26,0
Alluvial willow forests / Alluvial
E11/E12 poplar forests 37907 4,9 65 763,8
Alluvial forests of black alder and
E21 narrow-leafed ash 28110 3,7 42 366,0
Alluvial forests of pedunculate
E22 oak 105722 13,8 66 2163,1
Mixed oak-hornbeam forests and
E31 hornbeam forests 83223 10,9 61 1573,7

E93 Plantations of broadleaf trees 9084 1,2 20 56,3


I21 Mosaic of cultivated fields 77238 10,1 15 359,2
Mosaic of cultivated fields /
I21/J11/I81 Active rural cultivated
Intensively areas / Public
arable 2628 0,3 13 10,6
I31 fields on consolidated land 252098 32,9 10 781,5
J11 Active rural areas 19515 2,5 10 60,5
Active rural areas/Urbanised rural
J11/J13 areas 4622 0,6 14 20,1
J13 Urbanised rural areas 1067 0,1 18 6,0
In total 738285
In total natural habitats 372033 6939,5

Value of habitats in DSDF. The total value of near-nature floodplain habitats in Croatia (Table 7 in
bold) was calculated as 6.9 billion USD, which would be the cost needed to create these habitats by
renaturation or revitalisation projects. Hard floodplain forests (both alluvial forest of pedunculate
oak and mixed oak-hornbeam forest and hornbeam forest) contribute the most to the total value,
which is the result of a high point score (65 and 66 point respectively) and large areas (1,057 and 832
km2). Among other important habitats, one can also find central European humid grasslands (area
571 km2), soft floodplain forest willow and poplar (379 km2), alluvial forest or black alder and ash
(281 km2), and standing waters (178 km2) and watercourses (176 km2). The average value of natural
habitats is 18,650 USD per ha.

67
Valuation of habitats in PSA

For scenario A (Figure 54), we mapped and evaluated habitats in the same way as for DSDF. Given
the fact that shp files of the national habitat mapping do not include gravel bars, which are valuable
and key habitats for the Drava river ecosystem, these habitats were mapped additionally (Figure 55)
and their area was calculated. The actual visible area of gravel bars depends on the water level,
which is why mapping should be related to a particular hydrological situation. Due to the hydrological
regime of the Drava River, gravel bars most frequently appear during the late summer and autumn.

68
Figure 55: Habitats of the PSA (Source: SINP, 2009)

Figure 56: Gravel bars in the middle part of the PSA, mapped according to digital ortophoto map from the WMS
of the Republic of Croatia State Geodetic Administration (2011).

For the scenario B, the extent of the proposed Molve 1 and Molve 2 accumulations was intersected
with habitat maps, in order to quantify the loss of natural floodplain habitats under the accumulation
(Figure 52 and Figure 53). The resulting decrease of areas of particular habitats is shown in Table 8.
These habitats were replaced by the habitat of standing water without macrophytes and with
artificial banks (with a relatively low point value). The possible and probably negative effect on other
adjacent habitats (located next to the accumulation) was not evaluated due to its complexity.

69
Figure 57: Habitats under the proposed Molve 1 and Molve 2 accumulations. For habitat legend, see Figure 55.

Figure 58: Habitats under the proposed Molve 1 and Molve 2 accumulations, detail with gravel bars. For habitat
legend, see Figure 55.

70
For scenario C the structure and extent of habitats within the extended floodplain (replacement of
dykes) was changed: the area of valuable floodplain habitats as namely alluvial willow forest and
central Europe humid grassland was enlarged in the area between the dykes (Figure 59).

Figure 59: Habitats in the PSA in scenario C the extended active floodplain. For habitat legend, see Figure 55.

71
Table 8: Area of habitat type, its contribution to the PSA area, point value and monetary value for natural
floodplain habitats in scenarios A, B and C in the PSA.
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

Contribution to

Contribution to

Contribution to
PSA area %

PSA area %

PSA area %
Value Value Value
Area Point total Area Point total Area Point total
Code Habitat name (ha) value mill.$ (ha) value mill.$ (ha) value mill.$
A11 Standing waters 423 2,1 47 6,2 2268 11,3 6 4,2 425,0 2,1 47 6,2
A23 Permanent watercourses 973 4,8 52 15,7 304 1,5 52 4,9 976,2 4,9 52 15,7
Unvegetated and sparsely vegetated banks
of running waters / Temporary
A27 watercourses / Standing waters 9 0,0 43 0,1 9 0,0 43 0,1 9,3 0,0 43 0,1

Unvegetated and sparsely vegetated banks


of running waters / Temporary
A27/A22/A11watercourses / Standing waters 26 0,1 45 0,4 0 0,0 45 0,0 25,3 0,1 45 0,4

Reed beds, tall sedges and tall rushes /


A41/I21 Mosaics of cultivated areas 228 1,1 21 1,5 228 1,1 21 1,5 229,3 1,1 21 1,5
C22 Central Europe humid grasslands 148 0,7 66 3,0 90 0,4 66 1,8 1105,0 5,5 66 22,6

C23 Central Europe mesophilous grasslands 110 0,5 33 1,1 110 0,5 33 1,1 135,0 0,7 33 1,4
Central Europe mesophilous grasslands /
Central Europe humid grasslands / Mixed
oak-hornbeam forests and hornbeam
C23/C22/E31 forests 98 0,5 53 1,6 86 0,4 53 1,4 305,2 1,5 53 5,0
Central Europe humid grasslands / Mixed
oak-hornbeam forests and hornbeam
E31/C22 forests 66 0,3 64 1,3 13 0,1 64 0,3 77,0 0,4 64 1,5

Willow thickets on dunes / Alluvial willow


D11/E11 forests 187 0,9 52 3,0 65 0,3 52 1,0 266,8 1,3 52 4,3
Mesophilous hedges and thickets of
D12 continental, exceptionally coastal areas 94 0,5 33 1,0 84 0,4 33 0,9 94,0 0,5 33 1,0
Alluvial willow forests / Alluvial poplar
E11/E12 forests 1544 7,7 65 31,1 882 4,4 65 17,8 2145,1 10,7 65 43,2
Alluvial forests of black alder and narrow-
E21 leafed ash 186 0,9 42 2,4 165 0,8 42 2,1 485,3 2,4 42 6,3

E22 Alluvial forests of pedunculate oak 298 1,5 66 6,1 298 1,5 66 6,1 298,0 1,5 66 6,1
Mixed oak-hornbeam forests and
E31 hornbeam forests 3391 16,9 61 64,1 3391 16,9 61 64,1 3391,1 16,9 61 64,1
E93 Plantations of broadleaf trees

In total 7781 38,7 138,6 7993 39,8 702 107,4 9968 49,6 179,5
Percentage of A 100,0 77,5 167,1
Difference from A 0,0 -31,2 72,1

To compare scenarios A-C, the total monetary value, area and contribution to the total area of the
PSA were calculated (Table 8). The total value of natural habitats decreased in scenario B by 22.5%
compared to scenario A. This relatively low decrease is a consequence of the large area of the PSA,
which also includes large units of hard floodplain forest (Repa forest) that would not be replaced by
the accumulation and the impact of the accumulation on them is not a subject of this evaluation
method. The enlargement of active floodplain and replacement of some cultivated arable fields by
natural habitats (namely soft floodplain forests and humid grasslands) in scenario C have led to an
increase of the area, and consequently also to the value of 67% when compared with the scenario A.

The area of gravel bars in scenario A was calculated at 47 ha. Given the fact that their point value is
identical to the point value of this category of watercourse, they had no influence on monetary
values in this type of evaluation.

A comparable evaluation, also based on the cost of revitalisation, can be made using the estimates of
future revitalisation costs in the Danube floodplains, prepared by the WWF10. According to this
estimate, the long-term Danube floodplain restoration would be needed, with the investment costs

10
http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_restoration_potential_danube.pdf

72
of around 6,000,000,000 EUR shared by 13 countries in order to replace the lost floodplains. A study
carried out on the lower Danube after the 2006 floods (Schwarz et al., 2006) calculated the costs at
about 20,000 EUR/ km; this estimation does not include large technical structures, such as polder in-
and outlets, and compensation for land users. By comparison, costs in Germany and Austria can be
estimated at some 1-2 million EUR/km. Based on the DRB-wide average of 500,000 EUR/km, this
data would result in a value of 0.69 million USD per km2 for the existing Croatian natural floodplains;
using the prices in Germany and Austria, the value would be 2.07 million USD per km2, compared
with 1,7 million USD per km2 resulting from the Hesen method results in the previous calculations.

5.2.3. Provisioning services

5.2.3.1. Wood production

Introduction

Unlike in other central European countries, floodplain forests still cover remarkable areas of
floodplains in Croatia (Prpi et al., 2005). The well-known forests are in Spava, the lower section of
the river Drava upstream of Osijek, the Danube at Kopaki rit, Turopolski lug, Repa forest, Sunjsko
and Lonjsko and Odransko Polje, utica, Varoki lug and others. Four main types of forests and their
area and contribution to the entirety of DSDF are shown in Table 9. According to Klepac et al. (1996)
and Schneider Jacoby (2004), forests dominated by pedunculate oak cover the area of over 201,000
ha, with wood storage of 55.6 million m3 (wood increment 7.1 m3.ha-1 year-1). By comparison,
floodplain forests in the Czech Republic have been reduced to the contemporary 33,000 ha (Klimo et
al., 2008).

Pedunculate oak wood is highly priced in the furniture industry, and top-quality timber can be sold
for approx. 672 USD per m3 (according to the price list of the Croatian Forests Ltd. of 2012), which
makes it one of the most valuable timber products provided by the Croatian Forests Ltd. (Figure 63).
Table 9: Area and contribution of four main forest types in DSDF
Contribution to
DSDF area %

Area
Code Habitat name (ha)
Alluvial willow forests /
E11/E12 Alluvial poplar forests 37907 4.9
Alluvial forests of black
alder and narrow-leafed
E21 ash 28110 3.7
Alluvial forests of
E22 pedunculate oak 105722 13.8
Mixed oak-hornbeam
forests and hornbeam
E31 forests 83223 10.9

73
The growth and existence of pedunculate oak forests depend on the access to underground water
table. If the underground water table permanently falls, plain forest trees die sooner or later.
Massive dieback of pedunculate oak usually appears five to ten years after the change (Prpi, 2005).
Factors endangering the water table stability, which is necessary for the prosperity of floodplain
forest, include (according to Prpi, 2005) the shortening of river trace (cross cutting meanders),
construction of dykes, construction of accumulations and navigation channels, gravel and sand
excavation, and other factors.

The Croatian Forests Ltd. manages most of the hard floodplain forests and a substantial part of the
soft floodplain forests in Croatia. Representatives of the company are aware of the negative impacts,
and report losses due to the decrease of underground water table.

Forestry in Varadin County manages the soft floodplain forest in the old river Drava floodplain
(willow 22%, poplar 33%, oak 3%, elm 5%; 1,500 ha in total; Figure 60). These forests have a special
research forest status, and the level of underground water table is being monitored since the
construction of accumulations (monitoring is financed and managed by HEP). Underground water has
dropped remarkably in this area, due to the abstraction of water from the river Drava bed to
derivation channels. Wood production dropped from 25,000 m3 (before accumulation) to the
contemporary level of 12,500 m3; i.e. by 50% (with wood increment dropping from the original level
of 8 m3 to 4 m3 per ha per annum) (Croatian Forests, Forestry Varadin, personal communication).

Figure 60: Soft floodplain forest down to the Dubrava accumulation, where the old river Drava guaranteed the
biological minimum discharge of 8 m3.s-1.

Forests in the PSA. Soft floodplain forest, dominated by willow, poplar and alder, covers a substantial
part of the active floodplain (Figure 56), and it is owned by small private owners who are using it
extensively, mainly for firewood (Figure 57). Due to the character of ownership, there is no data
concerning the harvest, storage or increment. According to Vukeli (2008), the economic benefits
stemming from privately owned floodplain forests can reach approximately 2/3 of benefits stemming
from state forests.

74
Hard floodplain forest is located in the north-eastern part of the PSA (Figure 57 and Figure 58), and it
forms the forest management unit called Repa, which covers the area of 4,216 ha. This forest is
dominated by pedunculate oak (production 66%, area 77%), while other important species include
common hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), common ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and black alder (Alnus
glutinosa). The southern part of the forest adjacent to the river Drava is dominated by willows and
poplars. A characteristic management practise is seed felling (Figure 65). Management plans are
prepared for 10-year periods. Rotation (harvest cycle) for pedunculate oak in favourable conditions is
140 years. Sufficient wood increment in Repa forest depends on access to the underground water
table; the southern part of the Repa forest is exposed to regular flooding due to the absence of
dykes (Figure 59).

Figure 61: Forest types in the wider area of Molve 1 and Molve 2 accumulations. (Source: SINP, 2009)

75
Figure 62: Soft floodplain forest in the PSA is used extensively for firewood.

Methodological approach. For the purposes of evaluation of hard floodplain forest, we used the
contemporary data from Repa (Table 10 on page 81). In order to evaluate other functions (services)
of forests as well, the foresters routinely apply the methodology of calculating the so-called non-
productive forest functions, which is based on the methodology11 in which forests functions such as
soil protection, impact on water regime, support for soil fertility, impact on climate, protection from
erosion, oxygen production, recreation and hunting are evaluated by applying a point scale, where
one point is equal to a defined monetary value. In floodplain forest, this non-productive value is 5.7
times higher than the productive value (Prpi, 2005). This valuation is reflected in the final price of
forest, if it is subject to market operations. This methodology is actually a predecessor of the

11
Metodologija ocjenjivanja opekorisnih funkcija uma, year

76
ecosystem services approach, and it originates in a holistic understanding of forest functions and
roles. According to this method, the value of Repa forest is 97,000 HRK/ha (17,446 USD/ha). In the
final overview of ecosystem service values, we used only the productive value of forests, in order to
avoid doubling the value by adding non-productive forest values to the values of other ecosystem
services (which are in fact already incorporated in this non-productive value).

Figure 63: Sufficient wood increment in Repa forest depends on access to the underground water table.
Regular flooding contributes to groundwater recharge; the southern part of Repa forest is exposed to regular
flooding due to the absence of dykes.

Figure 64: Oak forest Repa managed by seed felling, leaving the top-quality trees to provide acorns for the
next generation.

77
Figure 65: Ash-dominated section of Repa forest.

For final calculations for scenarios A, B and C, we used forest type areas in connection with the
habitat mapping (Figure 53 on page 66). In order to calculate the values for hard floodplain forest, we
used the Repa forest data (Table 10) as reference (having been informed by the Croatian Forests
Ltd. that these values are transferable to other forest management units in the lower Drava). In order
to calculate the values for other forest types, we used the references from published literature (see
Table 9 on page 75).

Value of the service. Data on forest area, wood storage in m3, productive and non-
productive values (according to the Croatian Forests Ltd. evaluation method), annual wood
increment, and values of these parameters related to the area, are provided in Table 10. The
productive value of floodplain forests in DSDF is 2.5 billion USD, whereas the non-productive
value reaches 14.6 billion USD.

78
Table 10: Data on the total and proportional value (per ha), storage in m3, productive and non-productive forest values, and annual wood increment for DSDF and PSA
(scenarios A,B,C).

productive value mil.$

productivevalue/ha $

increment total mil. $


non prod. value mil.$
usual price per m3 $

fotal value mil. $

total value /ha $

increment /ha $
storage mil. m3

increment /ha
increment m3
storage mil. $

storage/ha $
area
Location Source
Repa forest Croatian Forests 2011 3200 1,16 40,52 362,65 34,91 40,52 12662 234,19 274,71 85846 25999 8,12 284 0,908
Repa forest Croatian Forests 2012 4218 44,91 44,91 10647 328,32 373,23 88475
Mura Drava Regional
Park Vukeli 57216
State owned 47393 9,38 197,91 36,29 328,19 6925 1896,95 2225,14 46951 356000 6,22 226 10,702
Private 9823

Forests impacted by NV Prpi a Jakovac 1998 12224 3,50 176,00 286,32 26,50 92,70 7583 535,81 628,51 51416
Varadin soft floodplain
forests Croatian Forests 1456 6206 4,26
Forests DSDF Habitat map of Croatia 256962 2534 14644 17177 8,12 284 72,891
Soft (E11/E12+E21) 66017 500,64 7583 2893,68 3394,31 51416 8,12
Hard (E22+E31) 190945 2032,92 10647 11750,25 13783,17 72184 8,12
Scenarion A Habitat map of Croatia 5419 60 346 406 8,12 284 1,537
Soft (E11/E12+E21) 1730 13,12 7583 75,83 88,95 51416 8,12
Hard (E22+E31) 3689 46,71 12662 269,98 316,69 85846 8,12
Scenarion B Habitat map of Croatia 4736 55 316 371 8,12 284 1,343
Soft (E11/E12+E21) 1047 7,94 7583 45,89 53,83 51416 8,12
Hard (E22+E31) 3689 46,71 12662 269,98 316,69 85846 8,12
Difference to A -5,18 -35,12 -0,19
Scenario C Habitat map of Croatia 6320 67 385 452 8,12 284 1,793
Soft (E11/E12+E21) 2630 19,95 7583 115,30 135,25 51416 8,12
Hard (E22+E31) 3689 46,71 12662 269,99 316,70 85846 8,12
Difference to A 7 46 1,79

79
Differences between scenarios A-C are stemming only from changes in the areas covered by various
forest types. In scenario B, the forests covered by the accumulation are being replaced; as opposed
to that, in scenario C the area covered by forest would be enlarged (Figure 35 on page 44). The
productive value of forest in scenario A is 60 million USD (1.53 million USD increment annually),
whereas this value for scenario B is at 55 million USD, and for scenario C at 67 million USD.

In order to evaluate the impact of accumulation on forests less adjacent to the river corridor, in
terms of underground water changes, a special methodology and datasets would be required, which
are outside of the scope of this study. However, this impact would be important, from both the
economic and the ecological point of view. For instance, the study of Novo Virje impact by Prpi and
Jakovac (1998) estimated that the overall loss due to the proposed Novo Virje accumulation would
be at the level of 663 million USD (900 million EUR). It should be expected that the impact would be
stronger on forest units located downstream of HEPP Molve 2 (Svibovica, urdevake nizinske ume),
where the increase of river bed deepening would cause drainage of the underground water table. In
close vicinity of HEPP Molve 1 and Molve 2 we can expect an increase of underground water (Gran
and Kovaev-Marini, 1992) which may also have an adverse effect on forest growth, whereas the
effect at further distances is unknown (there are no forests close to the existing HEPP North at
Varadin that would be comparable with the Repa forest). Antoni et al. (2001) modelled the
acceptable range of underground water table for the locality of Repa forest, and concluded that
pedunculate oak would probably end up extinct from the area within several decades, under the
existing environmental changes. According to these authors, the proposed HEPP (Novo Virje at that
time) could improve the conservation and reconstruction of this forest however, this
argumentation is ignoring the fact that other forests down the river would face an even higher risk of
extinction.

5.2.3.2. Fish provision

Introduction. Natural freshwater fish production and diversity depend on the ecological state of the
river ecosystem: namely, heterogeneity of the habitats and water quality (pollution) are crucial
factors affecting these variables. Similarly as the game animals attract hunters, fish attracts anglers,
which means that this service is interconnected with the ability of the ecosystem to provide
recreational activities. Good natural productivity of the ecosystem and developed angling activities
impact upon the final economic output of this service.

Situation in DSDF and PSA. Fish production in DSDF is based on natural production potential of these
three rivers, which are forbidden to stock (only man-made water bodies, such as sand pits adjacent
to the river but not connected to, it may be stocked). This potential is relatively high compared with
other European rivers which have lost the habitats crucial for fish reproduction. That is the reason
why the richness of species is very high: Mrakovi et al. (2006) report about 65 fish species in the
Drava River, which makes this river the most diverse in Croatia. Relatively high productivity of the
Drava River and its adjacent aquatic water bodies (oxbows) depends on:

Relatively good connectivity of the river with side arms (although there are also numerous
barriers and blinded connections of side arms). The side arms and their variety of lotic and
lentic ecosystems provide habitats for breeding and foraging of fish species

Absence of migration barriers on the main river bed

80
Presence of gravel bars as crucial habitat for breeding of salmonid fish

Preserved flood pulses with overbank flows, which is especially important for limnophilic fish
species

Good water quality

The impact of planned HEPPs should be expected, in the form of a decrease or even disappearance of
rheophilic fish species, and their replacement by limnophilic species. A drastic decrease of total fish
diversity and adverse effect on holobiotic migratory species (trout, pike, nase, barbel, vimba, starlet,
danubian roach and others; Mrakovi et al., 2006) should be expected, due to the disruption of river
integrity, changes in physical and chemical conditions, and disappearance of crucial habitats. Water
level pulses, caused by peak regime of electricity production, will adversely affect the fish
populations downstream as well.

In terms of angling, the Drava section in the PSA is managed by the Fishing Clubs Association
Koprivnica and Fishing Clubs Association urevac, consisting of 10 fishing clubs with 900 members.
The management plan is prepared for a 6-year period12, and it includes estimates of potential fish
production and allowed limits for fish catches in registered localities.

There are 200 visiting anglers per annum, with the median duration of visit of 2-3 days. They pay 80
HRK to the Fishing Union (14.40 USD per day, with 60 HRK diverted to the state, and 20 HRK
remaining in the Fishing Union); maximum 5 kg of fish, or 2 mature fish specimens, can be taken
home.

The catch and release method is more and more popular, and currently represents approx. 10% of
the total angling activity; however, it is limited to special localities (Drni Lake), and it is not supposed
to occur on Drava river.

Illegal fishing does occur, but its quantity is unknown. Ten rangers are hired by the Fishing Union in
order to fight this issue. Most of the wooden cottages on Drava river banks are also built illegally
(Figure 66).

12
Revizija ribolovno-gospodarske osnove Zajednica sportsko ribolovnih klubova Koprivnica and Revizija ribolovno-gospodarske osnove
Zajednica sportsko ribolovnih klubova urevac 2009-2015.

81
Figure 66: Fisherman cottage on the Drava River in the PSA.

The average quantity of fish catches is estimated by the Fishing Union at 10 tons per year in total (8.2
t in 2013); this figure includes both the river catch and catch at man-made lakes with no connection
to the river.

Methodological approach and results. Members of the Croatian angler community are obliged to
record every catch in their personal documents; this catch data is statistically processed (Table 11).
While fish species and weights are recorded, the locality of the catch is not transferred to the central
database, which is why it is not possible to distinguish among the fish catches in the Drava river
watercourse and other standing localities (predominantly sand pits). The Fishing Clubs Association
Koprivnica and the Fishing Clubs Association urevac, which manage the PSA, were asked to
provide data on fish catches and to estimate the contribution of the Drava River and its oxbows to
the total number of catches. However, the obtained data (in Table 11) shows a significant
discrepancy compared with the allowed catch limits, and is quite likely underestimated; this data was
therefore not used for calculating the value of the service.

In terms of the quantity of catch, the most prominent species in the PSA are common nase
(Chondiostoma nasus), common bream (Abramis brama), ide (Leuciscus idus), asp (Aspius aspius;
Figure 68), Prussian carp (Carassius gibelio), common barbel (Barbus barbus), with pike, carp and
grass carp species also frequently caught.

82
Figure 67: Common nase ( Aspius aspius). Photo: Duan Jeli; SINP archive.

According to the Croatian law13, Fishing Clubs Associations are holders of fishing rights, and are
therefore responsible for the management of individual fisheries sites, and have to make revisions of
their fishing Management Plans every 6 years. These revisions should include the annual fishing
quotas, as well as fish increment (Table 12 and Table 13) and the total fish quantity.

For the purposes of calculation of the service, the annual quotas have been used, given the fact that
they reflect both the ability of the ecosystem to provide fish production, and the usability of this
service by the angling community. According to this method, the average value of the service (using
both areas) per ha is 277 USD per year.

13
Freshwater Fisheries Act (OG 106/01, 07/03, 174/4, 10/05, 14/14).

83
Table 11: Fish catch overview of the Koprivnica Fishing Union; area: 515 ha.

Number of catches in

number of catches in
Drava river 2011

Drava river 2012


Fish species

Carp (Cyprinus carpio ) 28 31


Grass carp (Clenopharyngodon idell a) 123 132
Bighead carp (Hypophtaimichthys nobilis ) 0 0
Silver carp (Hypphtaimichthys molitrix) 0 0
Wels (Silurus glanis ) 18 16
Pike-perch (Sander lucioperca ) 14 25
Pike (Esox lucius ) 112 124
Tench (Tinca tinca ) 15 15
Common bream (Abramis bram a) 190 176

Ide (Leuciscus idus ) 116 113


Asp (Aspius sp. ) 104 101
Prussion carp (Carassius gibelio ) 324 112
Common nase (Chondiostoma nasu s) 960 771
Common barbel (Barbus barbus ) 367 165
Rutilus pigus virgo 32 79
Other autochtonous species 456 313

Total 2859 2173

84
Table 12: Annual fish increment for the most prominent fish species in the Koprivnica Fishing Union area for
the planning period 2009-2015.

Locality Total annual fish increment (kg) in 2009-2015

carp pike pike-perch wels other in total (kg) area (ha)


Watercourses
Rijeka Drava with armbeds 9569 2030 950 2313 24879 39740 900
Standing water body
odrana "Drni" 275 15 8 30 65 393 1,15
odrane "Stare Sekuline" 89 21 7 29 129 275 3,5
odrane "Sekuline nove" 161 43 14 21 58 297 4,5
Sabolekove grabe 125 29 11 18 59 241 2,4
ingi Lingi 714 93 83 125 94 1109 18
Standing water bodies in total 1364 201 123 223 405 2315 29,55

Table 13: Annual fish increment for the most prominent fish species in the urevac Fishing Union area for the
planning period 2009-2015.
increment (kg/ha) in
Total annual fish

2009-2015

Area (ha)

Locality

Watercourses and oxbows


Rijeka Drava s rukavcima 132 369,72
Rijeka Mura s rukavcima 128 74,61
Potok Gliboki 88 22,26
Potok Koprivnica 64 7,76
Potok Segovina 56 14,65
Kanal Bistra 53 3 ,01
Jekovo oxbow - big lake 48 19,41
Jekovo oxbow - small lake 45 6,73
Watercourses + oxbows 76,75 515,14
Oxbows only 46,5 26,14
Sandpits
Lake oderica 67 15172
Lake Gabajeva Greda - large lake 46 5,7
Lake Gabajeva Greda - small lake 39 3

85
Table 14: Price list of common freshwater fish species for the 2012 season. Grass carp, silver carp and rainbow
trout are alien species, and depend on stocking by anglers. Only economically important autochthonous
species have been used for the calculation.

Fish species price kn/kg price $/kg


Carp (Cyprinus carpio ) 37,3 6,7
Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella ) 22,4 4,0
Wels (Silurus glanis ) 55,4 10,0
Silver carp (Hypopthalmichthys molitix) 11,2 2,0
Pike-perch (Sander lucioperca ) 69,4 12,5
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus myk iss ) 41,1 7,4
Pike (Esox lucius ) 47,1 8,5
Tench (Tinca tinca) 38,2 6,9
Bream (Abramis brama) 16,0 2,9
Average price 37,6 6,8

Table 15: Annual quotas for freshwater fish species in Koprivnica and urevac fishing areas.
price per ha $

total value $

limit kg /ha
limit kg

$/ha
ha

Durdzevac
Drava river and oxbows 900 6,8 23845 162 146 26 177
Standing waters 29 6,8 1487 10 112 51 342
Koprivnica
Drava river and oxbows 515 6,8 34819 236 769 68 451
Standing waters 160 6,8 6326 43 017 40 264
In total
Drava river and oxbows 1415 6,8 58664 398 915 41 277
Standing waters 189 6,8 7813 53 128 41 276
In total 66477 452044

To evaluate the fish provision service in scenario B, we used the analogy with the existing
accumulation Varadin. For the purposes of calculating the fishing quotas in the accumulation of
HEPP Varadin, we used the data from the fishing Management Plan for 2013 of The Fishing Clubs
Association Opina Cestica 1995. This club manages the river Drava from the Croatian-Slovenian
border (56 ha); the accumulation of HEPP Varadin (Ormo Lake) with the surface of 145 ha; 3 rkm of
the HPP Channel "Formin" (20 ha), and some smaller tributaries.

In terms of catch numbers, the most prominent species in this area are pike, bream, asp, common
barbel, white bream, common nase, carp, chub, roach, pigo, tench, Gymnocephalus sp. and pike-
perch. Bighead carp and grass carp are also frequently caught. The average price of fish meat for
these species is 6.8 USD per kg. The annual quotas for freshwater fish species in Opina Cestica were
135 USD per ha in the old river Drava bed, 55 USD in Channel Formin, and 269 USD in HEPP Varadin
(Table 16). This makes the value of the service comparable with the scenario A, if expressed in the
price of fish meat per ha. Molve 1 and Molve 2 accumulations have the area of 870 ha and 1,006 ha

86
respectively, which gives the total value of the service of 505,000 USD for the scenario B. However,
the fish community would be less diverse, and popular rheophilic species would be missing.
Moreover, the fish stock in accumulations is supported by stocking, on which we do not have
sufficiently precise information to be included.

Table 16: Annual quotas for freshwater fish species from The Fishing Clubs Association Opina Cestica 1995.

price total limit


ha per ha $ limit kg value $ kg/ha $/ha
River Drava (old watercourse) 60 6,8 1108 7540 20 135
Chanel "Formin" of HPP 20 6,8 162 1102 8 55
Accumulation reservoir of HPP
Varadin 145 6,8 5742 39046 40 269

5.2.3.3. Game animals provision

Introduction. Game is any animal hunted for food, or not normally domesticated. Game animals are
also hunted in sport and leisure activities; hence, this service is connected with tourism and
recreation as well. In Croatia, according to the Hunting Act (OG 140/05, 75/09, 153/09, 14/14), game
is classified as either small game or large game. Small game includes small animals, such as
rabbits, pheasants, geese or ducks. A single small game licence may cover all small game species, and
be subject to yearly bag limits. Large game includes animals such as deer, bear, and elk, and the
permission for hunting such game is frequently subject to individual licensing, where a separate
licence is required for each individual animal taken.

Game provision depends on the structure of landscape. A mosaic structure, where game animals can
find both food and shelter, provides good conditions for game in principle. The presence of large
preserved forest areas usually also provides a suitable environment for valuable trophy game. Such
landscape structures are also present in DSDF and PSA, which means that game provision should be
evaluated as well.

In terms of hunting, the Drava section in the PSA is managed by the Hunting Association Koprivnica-
Krievci County, which is a member of the Croatian Hunters Association. The hunting grounds of the
Repa forest are managed separately by the Croatian Forests. According to Grubei and Krapinec
(2005), the Repa forest has been designated as one of the most valuable hunting grounds: in the
periods 1991/1992 and 2003/2004, there were 47 animals in medal range out of the total of 84
harvested animals (Figure 68).

87
Figure 68: Repa forest hunting centre

Methodological approach. The evaluation of the service is based on the number of harvested
animals and market prices for game animals. The data of registered hunters and the number of
harvested game animals were collected from the Hunting Association Koprivnica-Krievci County and
the Repa Forestry for hunting seasons 2011/2012 and 2012/2013. The Hunting Association
Koprivnica-Krievci County consists of 3 hunting clubs, located in Koprivnica, urevac and Krievci.
Due to the fact that the PSA includes only one part of the hunting grounds of urevac and
Koprivnica clubs, the estimation of game animal harvest in the PSA took into account only those parts
of hunting grounds that are encompassed by the PSA: area VI/104 Koprivnica 1 (38,879 ha), and two
grounds in the urevac area: VI/102 urevac 1 (22,977 ha), and VI/103 urevac 2 (3,030 ha).
These two hunting clubs had 1,018 Croatian members and 27 visiting foreign hunters in 2012.
According to the estimates of hunting club representatives, the number of hunters inside the PSA is
much lower, and there were only 27 Croatian members and 16 foreign hunters registered in 2012.

In order to estimate the hunting potential, the annual game harvest for each species in hunting
grounds VI/104 Koprivnica 1, VI/102 urevac 1 and VI/103 urevac 2 was multiplied with market
prices of game (according to the pricelist of game from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Water
Management14, Table 17). Where individual species were not included in this price list, the pricelist of
the Croatian Forests15 was used.

Two hunting grounds in the PSA are managed by the Croatian Forests - Peski VI/6 and Repa VI/9,
and since the whole Repa forest is a prominent hunting ground, these harvests were calculated
separately. The total size of hunting grounds in the Repa forest is 20,505 ha. The number of Croatian
hunters registered in the territory of these hunting grounds in hunting seasons 2010/2011 and
2011/2012 was 441 and 333 respectively. The number of foreign hunters in hunting seasons
2010/2011 and 2011/2012 was 273 and 285 respectively.

Results

14
Cjenik divljai, Ministarstvo poljoprivrede, umarstva i vodnog gospodarstva (Narodne novine broj 67/06).
15 Cjenik odstrela divljai i usluga lova s vanou od 01. travnja 2014. do 31. oujka 2015., Hrvatske ume.

88
The total number of harvested animals in Koprivnica and urevac hunting grounds is shown in Table
17, and the data for the Repa forest is shown in Table 18. Roe deer and wild boar are the most
important species for hunting. The total values of harvested animals are provided in Table 19. If we
present the total value per area unit, the value of the service is 15 USD per ha in Koprivnica-urevac
hunting grounds, and 18 USD per ha in Repa forest hunting grounds.
Table 17: Harvested game animals in hunting grounds VI/104 Koprivnica 1, VI/102 urevac 1 and VI/103
urevac 2.

number of game harvests in in


price of game animal (hunting

fee and price of game meat)*

kn/all harvests annualy

$ annualy
2012**
Game species
Large game animals
Red deer (Cervus elaphus) 125-300kg 8 833 79 697 833 125 510
Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) 17-25kg 2 100 989 2 076 900 373 543
Wild boar (Sus scrofa) 150-300kg 3 750 399 1 496 250 269 110
Fallow deer (Dama dama) 40-75kg 4 983 5 24 917 4 481
Small game animals 466 1 053 490 698 88 255
European hare (Lepus europaeus)- bonity classes 122 2 996 365 512 65 740
Common Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus ) 112 1 147 128 464 23 105
Mallard/wild duck (Anas platyrhynchos ) 250 28 7 000 1 259
European badger (Meles meles ) 233 4 932 168
Wildcat (Felis silvestris ) 466 71 33 086 5 951
Marten (Martes sp. ) 196 25 4 900 881
Greylag Goose (Anser anser) 196 10 1 960 353
Eurasian Coot (Fulica atra ) 93 185 17 205 3 094
Hooded Crow (Corvus cornix) 20 177 3 540 637
Corvus monedula 20 266 5 320 957
Red fox (Vulpes vulpes ) 250 4 1 000 180
European polecat (Mustela putorius) 250 1 684 421 000 75 719
Coturnix coturnix 28 345 9 660 1 737
Columba palumbus 100 70 7 000 1 259
Pica pica 20 191 3 820 687
Garrulus glandarius 196 3 588 106
Eurasian Woodcock (Scolopax rusticola ) 159 98 15 582 2 803
Anser fabalis 159 124 19 716 3 546
Total value of game animals 5 832 883 1 049 080

Table 18: List of game animal harvests in hunting grounds Peski VI/6 and Repa VI/9 in Repa forest, the
quantity of harvest in 2012, and value according to the price list.

89
(shooting and game meat)
number of game catches

price of game animal

kn annualy

$ annualy
Hunting season Game species
Red deer (Cervus elaphus) 42 8 833 371 000 66 727
Fallow deer (Dama dama) 0 4 983 0 0
Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus ) 135 2 100 283 500 50 989
2010/2011 Wild boar (Sus scrofa) 228 3 750 855 000 153 777
European hare (Lepus europaeus) 64 466 29 824 5 364
Common Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus 2 524 122 307 928 55 383
Grey Partridge (Perdix perdix) 87 159 13 833 2 488
Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) 162 112 18 144 3 263
In total 2011 1 879 229 337 991
Red deer (Cervus elaphus) 55 8 833 485 833 87 380
Fallow deer (Dama dama) 2 4 983 9 967 1 793
Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus ) 147 2 100 308 700 55 522
Wild boar (Sus scrofa) 286 3 750 1 072 500 192 896
2011/2012 European hare (Lepus europaeus) 136 466 63 376 11 399
Common Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus 2 335 122 284 870 51 236
Grey Partridge (Perdix perdix) 41 159 6 519 1 172
Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) 169 112 18 928 3 404
In total 2012 2 250 693 404 801

Table 19: Total and proportional (per ha) game animal harvests in studied hunting grounds .

Harvest per ha $
Game harvest $
Hunting ground

Area

Koprivnica and urevac


VI/104 Koprivnica 1,
VI/102 urevac 1 and 64886 993 691 15
Repa forest hunting
grounds Peski No. VI/6
and Repa No. VI/9 2011 20505 337 991 16

Repa forest hunting


grounds Peski No. VI/6
and Repa No. VI/9 2012 20505 404 801 20
Repa 2011 and 2012
average 20505 371 396 18

5.2.3.4. Drinking water provision

Introduction. Floodplain and river ecosystems provide drinking water supply, which is mostly used by
abstraction from aquifers (Figure 69). Aquifers are in dynamic balance with the hydrological regime
of the entire watershed, being recharged by precipitation, stream water through permeable river
bottom, and flood pulses with overbank flows. Depending on the environmental legislation at the
national level, controls may be placed on water abstraction in order to limit the amount of water that

90
can be removed. Over-abstraction can result in rivers drying up, or the level of groundwater aquifers
reducing unacceptably.

According to the European Water Framework Directive (2006), good quantitative status is assigned
to groundwater bodies, where, despite long term water abstraction in an area, there is no lowering
trend of groundwater levels. For this reason, each EU country should define the limits of sustainable
groundwater management, or sustainable groundwater yield.

Figure 69: Scheme of an aquifer and its dynamics (Source: Wikipedia).

Situation in DSDF and PSA. A vast majority of drinking water in northern Croatia is abstracted from
underground aquifers situated under the Drava, Sava and Danube floodplain areas (Figure 70). The
number of inhabitants who are using public water infrastructure supplied from the Danube basin
aquifers is 2.35 million. This constitutes 77% of the total number of inhabitants in the area (3.045
million); the remaining 23 % use private wells, sourced from underground waters as well. (Source:
Croatian Waters).

The quantitative status of groundwater in alluvial aquifers in northern Croatia has been assessed by
Brki et al. in 2010. The main focus of this study was on analysing the long-term trends in aquifer
water levels, based on long-term monitoring provided by piezometers throughout the rivers Drava,
Sava and Danube. The results of this study point to a generally negative groundwater level trend in
almost the entire area of the Drava and Sava alluvial aquifer. A more detailed statistical analysis
points to two principal reasons behind this trend: the deepening of the Drava and Sava river bed, and
a decreasing trend of total annual precipitation. The impact of these factors has been assessed by
proper statistical analysis, based on separate analysis of particular time periods with different
precipitation patterns, which proved the independent effect of these factors. The deepening of river
beds is a direct consequence of the shortening of river traces and a misbalance in transport of river
bed load trapped in accumulations, which results in the consequential strengthening of the erosion
potential of river water. The decrease of flood extent, which is the long-term trend in water
management, may also result in adverse effects on groundwater recharge.

91
A vast majority of piezometers (Figure 72) point to negative trends, with the exception of those in
the close vicinity of accumulations in Varadin County, where the presence of aboveground water
bodies results in increasing underground water levels; this trend, however, is not apparent in a wider
area of these reservoirs (Figure 72).

Figure 70: Abstraction sites with the maximum potential of abstraction in m3/s. For Geological Map legend, see
Figure 7 on page 18 (Croatian Geological Survey, 2009).

The PSA is situated on quaternary deposits with aquifers of very good transmissivity, which are
covered by impermeable deposits.

92
Figure 71: Monitoring network for groundwater and surface water levels with the thickness of aquifers in
northern Croatia (Brki et al., 2005).

In terms of aquifers, the PSA is located on quaternary sediments with aquifer of good permeability
covered by low-permeabily strata with virtually no aquifer (on the right bank of the Drava River), or
on sediments with very good permeability (on the left bank, Figure 72). The general status of water
quality and the relative amount of water can be characterized as good. There are two underground
water bodies under the PSA area Novo Virje and Legrad-Slatina (Figure 74). The potential storage of
underground waters Qinf for Novo Virje is 18.106 m3.year-1, with no abstraction sites. Legrad-Slatina
has Qinf of 362.106 m3.year-1, with abstraction of 19.106 m3.year-1.

Value of service for the PSA. We estimated the value on the basis of the abstracted amount of
drinking water for Legrad-Slatina, by multiplying its price per m3, which amounts to 19.4 mil USD per
year. The value per hectare (for the area of Legrad-Slatina water body) is 396 USD.ha-1.year-1 (Table
20). This value is underestimated, however, because it does not include abstraction from private
water wells. The overall value for DSDF can be estimated on the basis of the number of inhabitants
using the aquifers in DSDF floodplains which is 3.045 million inhabitants. This value is 189 million
USD, and it does not include water consumption of the business sector, which therefore means that
it is underestimated as well (Table 20).

The impact of scenarios A-C cannot be evaluated properly due to the complexity of hydrological
processes and lack of data. However, it can be assumed that scenarios A and C would result in better
groundwater recharge and that they would stabilise the aquifer water storage, while scenario B, due
to the absence of inundation, and due to less permeable bottom of accumulation (compared to the
active river bottom), would result in a reduction of groundwater recharge. Babtist et al. (1999)
estimate that the speed of groundwater recharge is 1 mm per day in the Lonjsko polje flood
detention area.

93
Figure 72: Character of aquifer in the wider PSA area and abstraction sites with maximum capacity Q max.

Figure 73: Defined underground water bodies Legrad-Slatina and Novo Virje and location of the PSA.

94
Table 20: Value of the drinking water provision service for DSDF and PSA (based on underground water body
Legrad-Slatina).

Value of the service Value of the


$ per year service $ /ha.yr Area km2
Price of drinking water in Croatia
$ (kn) 1,025 (5,7)
Annual average water
consumption per person (m3) 60,80
Number of inhabitants using the
water from aquifers in north 13000
Croatia floodplains 3 045 826,00 189 849 183 146 (Geol.floodplain)
Number of inhabitants using the
water from aquifers in
Koprivnika Krievci county: 115 584,00 7 204 459 41 1746
492 (floodplain
Abstraction in undreground water part of Legrad
body Legrad-Slatina (m3.yr-1) 19 000 000,00 19 478 417 396 Slatina)

5.2.3.5. Gold provision (Gold prospecting, placer mining)

Gold deposits are layers of sediment in the alluvial deposit enriched by particulate gold, and the
thickness of such layers is between 3 cm and 100 cm. In Croatia, gold deposits can often be found in
alluvial deposits of rivers and streams. They have been identified in quaternary deposits of the rivers
Drava and Mura, as well on the corridor Trnovec-Legrad-Podturen. On the river Drava, gold deposits
can be found from the Slovenian border to Terezino Polje, and on the river Mura from the river
mouth to Podturen.

In the recent Drava sediment, there are no gold deposits. Gold could be found on places such as sand
and gravel bars, before HEPP stopped the accumulation of alluvial deposits containing gold. In such
places, natural erosion processes would flood the gold deposits during the high water period, when
gold deposits could be found on the inner side of river meanders. This gold is usually 0.1-0.8 mm in
size (0.3 mm on average), and .930 fine gold.

Small-scale gold mining used to be common in Podravina for centuries. The first data on gold
prospecting on the Drava River stems from 1553 (the Zrinski noble family), but it can be assumed
that the practice originates from the Roman period. At the beginning of the 20th century, 400-500
people from Donji Vidovec, Donja Dubrava, Sv. Marija na Muri, Legrad, Hlebine and other villages
along the Drava River were active in gold prospecting. In 1939, there remained only 200 gold miners,
and 20 years ago only few of them were still active. Two men per day were usually required for gold
prospecting, and they could extract 0.5-2.0 g of gold from 1 m3 to 3 m3 of deposits per day.

In the 1820s, the annual collection of gold was 6 kg, and in the 1980s it was 12 kg per year. In this
process, 5,000 m3 of sediment would be separated. In 1955, a geological research on gold deposits
was performed near Trnovac, Donji Vidovac, Mali and Veliki Bukovac and Legrad, with 10 boreholes.
The results showed that these deposits are not profitable. The annual gold yield was 2.5-24.4 mg of
gold per 1m3 of sediment, and there were only few layers discovered with a significant 100-150 mg
yield of gold per 1 m3 of sediment. The only fully successful gold prospecting was performed in 1986,
when 1,142 mg of gold was obtained from one tone of sediment (Markovi, 2002).

95
At present, gold prospecting on the river Drava is vanishing due to the small economic value of gold
deposits and the fact that HEPPs have stopped accumulation of alluvial deposits containing gold. The
prospectors can still be found on the Drava banks, however (Figure 74). The day yield in the summer
of 2014 (Figure 74 on the right) was worth 500 HRK (90 USD) per day. However, gold prospecting can
be a suitable activity for tourists, attracting them to the region (see Section 5.2.4.).

Figure 74: Contemporary gold prospecting on the Drava River in Molve area (in the summer of 2014):
equipment (left) and daily yield (right).

5.2.3.6. Sand and gravel provision

Sand and gravel provision is an important ecosystem service of floodplains (Haslam, 2008).
Excavation from sand and gravel pits (Figure 75) should be regulated, and the limitations should be
followed. The newly created sand and gravel pits can became valuable habitats, due to littoral zones
and open sand areas attractive for nesting of some bird species attracted to gravel and sand bars in
the active river. Taxes paid by excavation companies are also an important sources of funds for
municipalities around the river. In addition, gravel and sand pits are destinations of swimmers,
tourists and anglers, and they can increase the attractiveness of the entire area.

Excavation of gravel directly from rivers (Figure 76) accelerates the deepening of river beds, which is
why it was banned on the Drava River several years ago.

96
Figure 75: One of the largest gravel pits, oderica Lake near the Botovo bridge, Drava.

Figure 76: Abandoned ships used for gravel extraction from the Drava River near Krinica.

5.2.4. Cultural services

5.2.4.1. Recreation/tourism

Introduction

The ability of ecosystems to provide recreation for people is being increasingly recognized in recent
decades (Haslam, 2008; TEEB, 2010). This ecosystem service depends on the ecological status of the
ecosystem, its accessibility and tourist infrastructure. Nature-oriented tourism, or ecotourism, is a
responsible approach exposing visitors to a nature-based experience, while simultaneously sustaining
or improving the ecological status of an area, as well as enhancing the quality of life for local (and
often peripheral) communities. Ecotourism facilities are expected to operate in harmony with the
ecosystem, and to remain consistent with the culture and social expectations of the people living
within the affected communities.

The 11th Meeting of the Conference of Ramsar Convention Parties, held in Bucharest in July 2012,
enacted the Resolution XI.7 on Tourism, Recreation and Wetlands, which confirms that sustainable
tourism and recreation can contribute to the achievement of public policy objectives and can bring
economic opportunities for securing wetland conservation, their wise use and the maintenance of
key socio-economic wetland values and functions, both in Ramsar Sites and in other wetlands. It
confirms that sustainable tourism and recreation can both benefit wetlands and contribute to the
conservation of ecosystem services, global biodiversity and sustainable development goals and
targets, and recognizes that sustainable tourism should optimally use the environmental resources,
respecting the socio-cultural authenticity of host.16

16
Transboundary Ecotourism Guidelines for the Sava River Basin - One River, Four Countries, Unlimited Possibilities (International Sava
River Basin Commission, 2013).

97
The importance of nature protection for tourism development is growing. According to the Institute
for Tourism (2007), nature-dependant tourism constitutes 7% of all tourist activities in the world,
growing at an annual rate of 10%-30%. Ecotourism constitutes between 7% and 10% of the entire
tourism sector, with an annual growth of 2% to 4%; adventure tourism grows at an annual rate of
8%.17

Situation in DSDF and PSA

Although there are some remarkable tourist activities and attractors in DSDF, tourism in this area can
be characterized as mostly undeveloped, since it is not fully using the potential of natural and
cultural heritage present in the area. The protected areas of Kopaki rit and Lonjsko polje (Figure 76)
are among the most successful areas; however, if we compare the number of visitors to these
localities with similar types of ecosystems abroad (Table 22), it is obvious that there is a remarkable
potential yet to be developed.

Figure 77: Village igo in Lonjsko polje Nature park. Main tourist attractors are the traditional architecture and
stork nests that can be found on almost every roof. Stork feeding habitats are grazed wetland areas, followed
by meadows. The breeding success of storks in the area is the best ever recorded for this species worldwide.
Size of surrounding pastures and regular flooding correlates with the breeding success of these populations
(Schneider-Jacoby, 2004).

17
Prirodna resursna osnova i razvoj turizma u Regionalnom parku Mura - Drava u Koprivniko- Krievakoj upaniji (Institute for tourism,
Croatia, 2010).

98
Table 21: Number of tourist visitors in different wetland destinations of a similar landscape character (2012).

Area Tourists/year ha tourists/ha.year


Duna Drava National park,
Hungary 116250 49000 2,37
Lonjsko Polje nature park 20000 50650 0,39
Kopaki rit nature Park 30000 17000 1,76

Koprivnika Krievci county 7651 174800 0,04

Rivers Mura and Drava represent a specific river area of Koprivnica-Krievci County, with significant
natural and cultural heritage. The Regional Park has a high touristic potential thanks to its preserved
natural river corridor and related landscape. As a result, this area is much more attractive than the
neighbouring western and eastern Drava watercourse in Varadin County, where hydropower plants
are present, or Virovitica, where the river mostly lost its floodplain habitat. The most recognized
natural and cultural identity of the County is the river itself. Habitats such as alluvial wetlands and
alluvial forests of pedunculate oak are among the most unique habitats in Europe, combined with
rich ichtiofauna and ornitofauna. Climate conditions allow for diverse summer and winter activities.

In the context of cultural attractiveness, the most significant element is the naive art heritage of
Podravina, which has its roots in Koprivnica-Krievci County, and constitutes an integrated part of the
Regional Park (see the following section). The Institute for Tourism emphasizes the tourist potential
of the Drava River as a central attraction of Koprivnica-Krievci County.

Tourism in the Regional Park is poorly developed. According to official statistics, there were only
6,705 tourists and 18,241 overnight stays in the whole of Koprivnica-Krievci County in 2012 (Table
22). Accommodation is offered only in the towns of Koprivnica and urevac, and in the
municipalities Gola, Virje and Molve (official data from the Koprivnica-Krievci County Tourist Board).
Inside the Regional Park, gastronomy and accommodation offer is poorly developed (Table 23).

99
Table 22: Numbers of tourists in Koprivnica-Krievci County and the town of urevac (Source: Koprivnica-
Krievci County Tourist Board). The number of tourists does not include one-day visitors, because this number
is undetectable.

Koprivnica-Krievci County
2010 2011 2012
Number of Number Number Number Number Number
tourists of of tourists of of tourists of
overnight overnight overnight
stays stays stays
6712 10859 9535 20018 6705 18241
Town of urevac
2010 2011 2012
Number Number Number Number Number Number
of tourists of of tourists of of tourists of
overnight overnight overnight
stays stays stays
Domestic 3056 5779 3333 5483 4874 10352
tourists
Foreign 1124 1811 995 1600 1425 3372
visitors
Total 4189 7590 4328 7083 6299 13723
number of
tourists

Table 23: Accommodation facilities in Koprivnica-Krievci County (Source: Koprivnica-Krievci County Tourist
Board).
Accommodation capacities
in Koprivnica-Krievci
County
Type of accommodation Name of Number of
facility beds
Koprivnica Hotel Podravina 98 + 3A
Hotel Bijela kua 23+1A
Hotel Zlatan i 26
Marijela
Apartments to rent or Marbis 3A
rooms in guest houses
Tourist pensions Tara 12
Doss house Sunano selo 14
Agritourist pensions Jastrebov vrh 4
(daisies)
urevac Hotel Picok 200
Hunting lodge Peski 20
Gola Hunting lodge ambina 14
Virje Hotel Crna Mica 8
Apartments to rent or Vri 6
rooms in guest houses
Agritourist pensions Ana Vincek 8
(daisies)
Total 18 18 433 + 7A

100
The main touristic attractions and activities in Koprivnica-Krievci County include the following:

1. Regional Park Mura-Drava angling, hunting, boating;


2. urevac (old town, gallery with the collection of the Croatian naive painter Ivan Lackovi
Croata, urevaki pijesci, ethnological collection Slavko amba);
3. Hlebine, gallery Hlebine, Ivan Generali's old house with the gallery and Josip Generali's
atelier, ethno house Janiina hia, and a number of small private galleries of naive art;
4. Swimming and angling: Lake oderica (Legrad), Lake ingi Lingi near Molve;
5. Legrad river bend Mura-Drava, zoological reserve Veliki Paut;
6. Molve pilgrim church Podravska katedrala;
7. Podravske Sesvete ethnological collection Cugovan, ecological peace garden;
8. Repa forest, ambina hunting;
9. Cycling: the cycling routes along the Drava River have recently been established (Figure 78),
although they lack direct access to river banks.

Main events with the potential to attract tourists:

1. Koprivnica Motif of Podravina (Podravski motivi) fair of naive art, old crafts, gastronomy
and folklore;
2. Koprivnica The Renaissance festival (Renesansni festival);
3. urevac Picokijada Legend of Picoks;
4. Molve Assumption of the Virgin Mary on August 15th (Velika Gospa) a religious
manifestation.

Figure 78: Selected Cycling routes of Koprivnica-Krievci County In the PSA and its vicinity (Turinski, 2012).

101
Ecotourism

Figure 79: Komatnica Horse Riding Club the first ecotourism enterprise in the PSA

The first ecotourism enterprise in the PSA was the horse riding club in Komatnica (Mr. Zvonko Miir,
portsko konjiki klub Komatnica), approximately 10 km from Molve. Nowadays, Komatnica has
about 25 permanent settlers, but it used to be much bigger in the past (250 inhabitants). Due to the
extensive flood in the seventies and lack of jobs, the village is mostly abandoned today. Mr. Miir
established a civil society association to bring new life to the village. They claimed the former school
building for their purposes. Three new rooms for guests were prepared, together with stables for
several horses, a kitchen, a grill fireplace, and other usual facilities. Two ponies and one horse are
offered for riding. In addition, the quests with their own horses can also be accommodated. Given
the fact that the area is not popular with tourists, a prerequisite for success of this enterprise would
be the promotion of the entire area, in order to attract visitors.

Evaluation of ecosystem service: recreation

Evaluation of this ecosystem service is based on a variety of methods; however, most of these
methods depend on sociological approaches, such as the filling out of forms (questionnaires)
focusing on economic indicators, for instance on how much is the respondent willing to pay in order
to travel to a particular ecosystem (protected area) in other words, the travel cost method is used
(Turner et al., 2008). In addition, the economic impact of tourism can be assessed by analysing daily
spending. Given the fact that such research would not fit into this study in terms of time limitations
and available financial sources, one should at the very least estimate the potential for scenarios A-C
in the PSA.

102
In scenario B which includes Molve 1 and Molve 2 accumulations it would be difficult to expect an
increase in the number of visitors. As opposed to that, support for and development of sustainable
tourism constitutes an integral part of scenario C in the PSA. Based on comparable wetland areas
(Table 21) and potential attractors (with the Drava River as primary attractor), we estimate that the
number of visitors might increase five to ten times, assuming that proper policies are adopted.

When it comes to the policies, measures and ideas relevant for improving the recreation/tourism
ecosystem services, we can mention the following:

The Regional Park Mura-Drava should be developed as an attractive destination, and the
tourist board team should develop tourism planning in terms of nature conservation, with a
focus on the ecological component, in order to contribute to the sustainable development of
the area.
Infrastructure and attractors adjacent to the river should be developed, specifically:
o Visitor centres and access points with information about the river and floodplain
ecosystem, history of the area, etc. (Figure 80).
o Camping sites for canoers and boaters.
o Restaurants and accommodation facilities.
o Cycling and walking trails leading the visitor to the river banks as well.
o Bird watching towers and centres. Bird watching is becoming an increasingly popular
hobby, and its importance and value as a niche market in tourism is recognized
(Biggs, D. et al., 2011). It is the most common form of ecotourism in the world. The
Mura-Drava Regional Park could use this touristic niche, given its unique natural
beauty, alluvial wetlands and the richness of flora and fauna species.18
o Organized canoe trips and rentals.
o Floating mill replicas. Floating mills (Figure 81) are very characteristic and unique
examples of old craftsmanship in the Podravina region. There is a plan of Molve
municipality to build one such mill in Molve. In 1865 (according to the map survey of
the Austro-Hungarian Empire), there were 58 floating mills in the PSA (16 if which
were in Molve).
o Good practice from other similar nature parks, such as the Duna-Drava National Park,
should be studied and adopted. This Hungarian national park has 1,167 canoers per
year and many touristic services, such as the Walking Tour, Photography Tour,
Cycling Tour, Canoeing on Danube, Canoeing on Drava, Guaranteed Trip, Illustrious
Day, Open Day, education programs, open-air school (outdoor education), cultural
programs (concerts).
o It would also be possible to reflect good practice from the Croatian protected
wetland areas, such as the Lonjsko polje Nature Park (50,650 ha), where the annual
number of tourists exceeds 20,00019, or the Kopaki rit Nature Park (17,000 ha),
where the annual number of tourists reaches 30,000.
o Rules of access for visitors to protected Natura 2000 sites should be developed, in
order to minimize potential harm to protected species (by limiting access to gravel
bars during the breeding period, for instance).

18
The value of avitourism for conservation and job creation - An analysis from South Africa (Biggs D et al., 2011).
19 MARKETING PLAN Podruja Parka prirode Lonjsko polje za razdoblje od 2013. do 2020. godine.

103
Figure 80: Proposal of potential cycling routes in Prekodravlje within the Regional park Mura-Drava (Turinski,
2012).

5.2.4.2. Art inspiration

The ecosystem service of art inspiration is usually listed near the bottom of the list of ecosystem
services, as a less important and/or recognised type of service. Haslam (2008), together with other
authors, points out the intangible character of that service. According to the 2003 Convention for the
Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, the intangible cultural heritage (ICH) or living
heritage is the mainspring of humanity's cultural diversity, and its maintenance is a guarantee for
continuing creativity. Intangible Cultural Heritage means the practices, representations, expressions,
knowledge, skills as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated
therewith that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their
cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is
constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction
with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus
promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity.

Naturally, an intangible character of a value does not prevent it from having economic importance.
Haslam (2008), for instance, notices the fact that some areas possess attractiveness for tourists
because of famous artists who lived and created there (Lake District in England, for instance). The
visitors coming to such places create demand for services that is important for the local economy.

Cultural heritage of the Podravina region, and especially of the PSA, is closely connected with naive
art, a unique artistic school quite well known not only in Croatia, but also abroad. The most
prominent locality is the village of Hlebine, with its gallery of naive art and the Generali Collection.
Hlebine is the core of local naive art, but we should also mention the settlements Gola, Molve,
Gornja uma and elekovac, as well as the municipalities Novo Virje, Peteranec and Podravske
Sesvete. The establishment of the Mura-Drava-Danube Biosphere Reserve provides an opportunity

104
for revitalization of local art, especially through international cooperation and international
initiatives.

Special technique of the Hlebine school is based on reverse painting on glass (canvas being too
expensive in previous times). The naive art started developing in the Hlebine area in the 1930s, when
the academic artist Krsto Hegedui spotted the talent of two local boys for drawing pictures Ivan
Generali and Franjo Mraz. These amateurs had their first exhibition in Zagreb in 1931 (when they
were 17). The second generation came in the 1950s. Again, they were amateurs without an academic
background. At present, there are about 100 naive artists in the area from Koprivnica to urevac,
on both sides of the river (also in Gola). The dominant themes of this art school include the life of
countrymen and nature, or life in nature (Figures 81-84). Many paintings show ecosystem services
and activities connected with sustainable use of natural resources: fishing, harvesting, grazing,
cutting of firewood, transport, floating mills, etc. They usually illustrate a kind of harmony between
the nature and man, a close relationship between human activities and natural phenomena (Figure
64), such as, for instance, natural flooding or floodplain forests.

Figure 81: Mill. Mijo Kovai

105
Figure 82: Fisherman. Mijo Kovai

Economic relevance. The price of paintings starts at 70 USD, but usually ranges from 250 USD to 400
USD, if the painter is not widely known. Famous artists sell their paintings for more than 1,400 USD.
For most people, this is simply a contribution to their main income, rather than their main job. Mijo
Kovai, the most famous painter, usually makes one painting per month, and sometimes works on
paintings longer. In general, it takes from 14 days to 6 months for a painting, with 10 paintings per
year. Their price ranges from 6,000 USD to 70,000 USD. There is no central register of paintings,
which is why we cannot calculate the exact overall economic turnover. Many authors (there are
approximately 300 of them) have their Internet pages and local private galleries.

Mijo Kovai has the Gallery Mijo Kovai in Zagreb, sponsored by private sponsors, and also by the
Kovai family. Admission is free. On average, there are 15 visitors a day or 5,475 visitors per year.
In the vicinity, there is also the State Museum of Naive Art. The Local Museum of Naive Art is located
in Hlebine.

For scenarios A and C, we can estimate the economic benefit from this ecosystem service in the
range of 100,000 to 300,000 USD per year. Scenario B would practically destroy the principal source
of artistic inspiration (floodplain forests and natural flooding, for instance), and therefore should be
taken as having zero value.

More proper evidence and price and turnover estimation should be ensured in order to properly
evaluate this service. Apart from the intangible and economic value, it also has a value for the
Croatian prestige abroad, given the fact that it is a valued and unique artistic product.

106
Figure 83: Flood in Podravina and sustainable use of natural resources, naive artist, umarija Repa.

Figure 84: Hunters dream. Mijo Kovai

107
Support for indigenous breeds as cultural heritage

Indigenous breeds are important as cultural heritage, and also in terms of maintaining specific and
irreplaceable landscapes, character of the area, and genetic diversity. Among other ecosystems,
floodplains also provide habitats for indigenous species (Figure 85).

During the development of the European civilization in the previous millennia, indigenous livestock
has become a constituent part of traditional landscapes. Local vegetation was controlled by grazing
and foraging of autochthonous animal breeds. Indigenous animal species became adapted to local
climate and habitat conditions, and semi-resistant to local pests and diseases.20 Domestic animal
breeds provide key agro-ecosystem functions, such as nutrient cycling, seed dispersion and habitat
maintenance. Animal genetic resources and animal management systems are an integral part of
ecosystems and productive landscapes throughout the world. By moving their herds seasonally,
pastoralists connect different ecosystems. Land-based production systems that have both plant and
animal components need co-management of various components of biological diversity, including
soils, crops, rangelands and pastures, fodder crops and wildlife.21 Numerous rare and endemic
species are associated with the habitats in which these indigenous breeds are raised, and the
disappearance of these habitats thus also endangers biodiversity.

Due to recent changes in agriculture practices, an increasing number of autochthonous breeds is


facing the threat of extinction. With the decline or even disappearance of some of the dominant
indigenous animal species, the traditional semi-natural habitat may change. Undergrowth can
develop, invasive plant species can spread, and landscape can change from a high-biodiversity grass
and low bush habitat into a low-biodiversity habitat.

Indigenous breeds are an important incentive for the revival of rural areas, as they bring extra
income to the local community for instance, through sales of characteristic local food products. As
indigenous breeds have become an integrated part of the traditional landscape, they are suitable for
managing the biodiversity of habitats, especially in protected areas. A prudent way of managing
biodiversity is by including indigenous breeds in the husbandry system in protected areas. This
system is already showing results in the Nature Park Lonjsko polje (Slavonian-Syrmian podolian
cattle, Croatian Posavina horse).

In the area of the Mura-Drava-Danube Biosphere Reserve, several autochthonous species of


domesticated animals have been preserved: the Slavonian-Syrmian podolian cattle, Meimurje
horse, Hrvatica hen, small Meimurje dog Mei, and various old plant breeds. In Podravina, one can
also find breeds such as the Turopolje pig, black Slavonian pig, and less known indigenous breeds:
Drava goose, Croatian hen, Podravina hen, Krievci kukmica hen, Meimurje hen, and Meimuje
turkey.

It is necessary to find new opportunities in order to bring indigenous breeds back into rural areas in
which they can efficiently revive and maintain landscapes and habitats, while preventing the erosion
of biodiversity and specific regional and landscape character, which is also important for tourist
development. The evaluation of this service would require specific approaches and methodology,
which is outside of the scope of this study.

20
Green Book of indigenous breeds of Croatia, State Institute for nature protection, Ministry of Environment and Nature Protection,
Croatian Agricultural Agency, 2011.
21
Global plan of action for animal genetic resources and the Interlaken declaration, Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2007.

108
Figure 85: Indigenous breeds in Posavina (Oprisavci, Poljanci): Slavonian-Syrmian podolian cattle, Cigaja sheep,
black Slavonian pig, Croatian Posavina horse. Photo: Brod Ecological Society BED.

5.3. Ecosystem services compared in variable scenarios in PSA


Evaluated ecosystem services. Comparison of evaluated ecosystem services (Table 25) points to the
economic importance of supporting services (habitat provision) and regulating services (flood
mitigation). When it comes to provisioning services, the drinking water provision has the relatively
highest level.
When it comes to the services which have been evaluated in all the three scenarios for the PSA,
scenario C includes the highest values for all three services: wood production, habitat provision and
flood mitigation. This is a consequence of land use changes within various scenarios (replacement of
natural habitats by accumulation in scenario B, and their enlargement in scenario C; see Section 3.3),
and of the structure and enlargement of the active inundation zone, which provides larger flood
storage volume. Wood production in the PSA can be impacted by the conversion of floodplain
forests. A negative impact is also possible in hardwood floodplain forest areas more distant from the
accumulation, and, even more substantially, in the areas located downstream of the accumulation,
which are not positioned in the PSA. This impact, however, has not been evaluated due to the lack of
data sources. Nutrient retention would be higher in scenario C than in scenario A, but additional
analysis is needed to evaluate scenario B.
Services evaluated only for scenario A game animal production, fish production and drinking water
provision can also be estimated for other scenarios. Unlike fish production, where the situation is
unclear because we do not know fish production for the proposed accumulation, the impact on game
animal production will definitely be negative in scenario B, and positive in C. Drinking water
production depends on how the groundwater recharge will be influenced by the accumulation.

109
Table 25: Comparison of values for evaluated ecosystem services in scenarios A, B and C in the PSA.

List of Ecosystem services relevant for Drava Sava Danube Floodplains


Ecosystem service Estimate for scenario

A B C
$
mil. $. for pilote study
2 -1
area 201 km .year

Wood production 284 $.ha of forest-1.year-1 60 55 67


Fish production 277 $.ha of water body-1.year-1 0,45 0,5 >A
Flood mitigation 5020 $.ha of floodplain-1.year-1 26,4 -7,4 31,5
Habitat provision 17800 $.ha of floodplain-1.year-1 139 107 179
Game animals production 18 $.ha of floodplain-1.year-1 1,45 <A >A
Drinking water provision 396 $.ha of floodplain-1.year-1 19,5 ? >A
Nutrient retention 250 $.ha of floodplain-1.year-1 0,95 ? 1,28

Non-evaluated ecosystem services. Table 26 shows the estimation for other identified ecosystem
services which were not evaluated. The size of red circles indicates the estimation of relative values
in the comparison of scenarios A, B, and C.

110
Table 26: Estimation of relative values for non-evaluated ecosystem services for scenarios A, B, and C in the
PSA.

List of Ecosystem services relevant for Drava Sava Danube Floodplains

estimate for scenario

Ecosystem service
A B C
Biomass energy
Irrigation water supply
Agriculture production
Balance of erosion and acumulation

Carbon sequestration
0


Local climate regulation
Air purification

0

Draught mitigation, water storage
Biocorridor provision



Estetic value of landscape
Raw material for local crafts

0


Habitats for indigenous breeds
6. Incentives important for support and strengthening of
ecosystem services in DSDF

Nature protection

The EU nature protection instruments are implemented in the Croatian law (entered into force in July
2013). Hence, NATURA 2000 sites are established on the Drava River. Moreover, the Drava River and
its floodplain area are part of the core zone of the MuraDravaDanube Biosphere Reserve in Croatia
and Hungary (Figure 87). For this reason, nature protection of the rivers Drava and Danube has an
international character, and cannot be limited only to the Croatian national perspective.
Comprehensive issues of nature protection in DSDF and PSA are described in Section 1, and a
complete list of protected areas in DSDF is provided in Annex 1.

111
Figure 86: Biosphere Reserve Mura-Drava-Danube: core, buffer, and transition zone.

European directives

The European union Council stressed the need to integrate biodiversity concerns into all EU and
national sectoral policies, in order to reverse the continuing trends of biodiversity loss and ecosystem
degradation.22 When it comes to the legal framework for the preservation of wetland conditions in
the territory of the Drava River, what follows are some directly applicable regulations.

Considering the EU Directives such as the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive,
Member States shall implement the necessary measures to prevent deterioration of the status of all
bodies of surface water and to enhance and restore all bodies of surface water, with the aim of
achieving good surface water status at the latest 15 years after the date of entry into force of the
Directive.23 The WFDs objectives of achieving good groundwater quantitative status (Annex V.2.1.2)
and good groundwater chemical status (Annex V.2.3.2) require that, among other things, the
groundwater needs of terrestrial ecosystems that depend directly on bodies of groundwater be
protected, and where necessary restored to the extent needed to avoid or remedy significant
damage to such ecosystems.

When it comes to the Directive on the assessment and management of flood risks (2007/60/EC),
flood risk management plans should focus on prevention, protection and preparedness. With a view
to giving rivers more space, they should consider, where possible, the maintenance and/or

22http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/2020.htm
23 Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Article 4.

112
restoration of floodplains, as well as measures to prevent and reduce damage to human health, the
environment, cultural heritage and economic activity.

Croatia has already started fulfilling its commitments in regard to the Flood Directive, specifically
within the framework of the EU IPA 2010 twinning project Development of Flood Hazard Maps and
Flood Risk Maps (2013 2014). The purpose of this project is to implement the requirements of the
EU Floods Directive, which includes the preparation of flood hazard maps and flood risk maps for the
Republic of Croatia. The results of this twinning project will be used in the preparation of flood risk
management plans. Croatian institutions (Ministry of Agriculture, Croatian Waters) are collaborating
with three EU Member States, the Netherlands, Austria and France, in the implementation of this
twinning project (http://twinning.voda.hr/).

In the context of main EU instruments on nature protection, having in mind the planned hydropower
dams on the Drava river, the following Water Framework Directive requirements should be taken
into account: the requirement for a flow regime in accordance with the ecological criteria24; the
requirement for undisturbed migration (the ability of fish to bypass migration hindrances). One other
WFD-related criterion highly relevant for the construction of hydropower facilities is connected with
the morphological changes on rivers caused by the use of the water body, since morphology plays a
decisive role with respect to the evaluation of water bodies.25 Another issue that may represent a
burden for hydropower plans is the aspect of cost-covering prices for water services.26 This involves
the recharging of external costs to the users of water bodies.

National and regional strategic plans

Protected river area of the Drava River is the key area in the spatial development of Koprivnica-
Krievci County. Having in mind the fact that environmental protection is an integral part of strategic
planning across all sectors, it is important to consider this area in the context of the Croatian National
Strategy for Physical Planning and the Croatian Tourism Development Strategy until 2020.

Although the Croatian National Strategy for Physical Planning allows for new hydropower dam
construction on the Drava River, hydropower plant construction invokes an extensive set of spatial
and ecological issues, as well as transboundary agreements, and is hardly feasible.

On the other hand, the Croatian Tourism Development Strategy until 2020 promotes environmental
protection and sustainable management of ecosystems. In addition, the EU Sustainable Development
Strategy has three key objectives: economic prosperity, social equity and cohesion, and
environmental protection. The environmental and cultural protection segment is focused on
minimising pollution and degradation of the global and local environment, and on adequate use of
scarce resources in tourist activities; the aim is to maintain and strengthen cultural richness and
biodiversity, and to contribute to their appreciation and conservation.

Important projects relevant for nature protection, sustainable development and ecosystem
services in the PSA:

LIFE Drava Croatia (2013)

24
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Article 1/34.
25 Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Article 11.
26 Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Article 9.

113
The aim of the project (in proposal stage) is to ensure renaturation of the river and alluvial
forest ecosystem of the lower Drava between Koprivnica and Virovitica, as the first stretch of
a freeflowing river after a long chain of hydro power plants. Despite major interference of
the river regulation and the construction of water power stations, this stretch of the river has
remained comparatively close to its natural form, and it presents an extraordinary area of
international importance from the point of view of nature conservation. The river restoration
concept includes an analysis of the current situation and the threats posed by human
activities. The study aims to highlight concrete measures for the restoration of the Drava
River in the project region (which is significantly overlapping with the PSA of this study),
which will represent the basis for future activities in the area of both river engineering and
ecology.

NATREG - Prirodna resursna osnova i razvoj turizma u Regionalnom parku Mura-Drava u


Koprivniko-krievakoj upaniji (2009-2011)

This project was oriented on the determination and valorisation of natural and
anthropogenic potential of tourism development in the Regional Park Mura-Drava in
Koprivnica-Krievci County. The study results could be implemented in the Spatial Plan of the
Regional Park (Prostorni plan posebnih obiljeja Regionalnog parka). The study area
encompassed the Regional Park Mura-Drava in Koprivnica-Krievci County and 10
municipalities: Drnje, elekovec, Ferdinandovac, Gola, Hlebine, Legrad, Novo Virje, Molve,
Peteranec and Podravske Sesvete. The concept of sustainable tourism development in the
context of a high nature protection status of the area was elaborated in detail.

SEE River project - Sustainable Integrated Management of International River Corridors in


SEE Countries (2012-2014)

This project focuses on the preparation of a common agreement in river corridor


management between 12 countries along six river corridors: Drava, Bodrog, Neretva, Prut,
Soa and Vjosa. In order to harmonise stakeholders interests at different levels, and in order
to achieve future sustainable use of the river corridor, the SEE River Toolkit would be
prepared. The majority of activities will be developed and implemented on pre-selected pilot
sites of the Drava river corridor in all five riparian countries: Italy, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia
and Hungary. The countries included in the project are Italy, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia,
Ukraine, Slovakia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Greece, Hungary, Romania and Moldova.

Subsidies

The Action Plan for Ecological Agriculture Development in the Republic of Croatia for the period
2011-201627 estimates that the number of ecological agriculture producers and the land surface will

27
Akcijski plan razvoja ekoloke poljoprivrede u Republici Hrvatskoj za razdoblje 2011.-2016. godine.

114
be increasing by 30% per year. According to forecasts, Croatia might have 5,000 registered ecological
producers by the end of 2016, who would manage 90,000 ha. Ecological production would reach 8%
of the total agriculture production in 2016.

In 2011, the national subsidies for regular plant/crop production were 369.20 USD/ha (2,055.00
HRK/ha) for arable land, and 126.12 USD/ha (702.00 HRK/ha) for meadows and pastures. Special
additional financial support was 520 USD/ha (2,894.00 HRK/ha) for ecological production of
vegetables and perennial plantations, 430 USD/ha (2,394.00 HRK/ha) for arable land, and 278
USD/ha (1,548.00 HRK/ha) for meadows and pastures.

A higher level of subsidies (278 USD/ha) for ecological production on meadows and pastures,
compared with intensive land use, should also stimulate extensive management in floodplain areas.
Considering the fact that 33% of Natura sites in Croatia encompass agricultural land, extensive
management should play a significant role in nature protection in the Regional Park Mura-Drava.

7. Summary and conclusions

Floodplains in northern Croatia along the Drava, Danube and Sava rivers (DSDF) represent a unique,
large, interconnected and relatively preserved floodplain ecosystem which is recognised on both the
national and international level, and which is subject to nature protection measures at a variety of
levels (Natura 2000, Regional Parks, MAB UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, Ramsar sites).

Apart from providing valuable habitats that support biodiversity, the floodplain ecosystem provides a
number of ecosystem services with economic relevance. These services include provisioning
ecosystem services drinking water, wood, fish, game animals and other resources; regulating
ecosystem services flood protection, drought protection, nutrient and carbon cycle stabilisation,
sediment retention; cultural services recreation, art inspiration and others.

Due to the prevailing threats to the integrity, functioning and existence of floodplain ecosystems,
there is an increasing need in recent times to evaluate these services, in order to better understand
the benefits of floodplain ecosystems, and in order to evaluate possible losses in case that these
systems would lose their near-nature state, or be totally destroyed.

The most prominent threats to DSDF include the plans to build a system of hydroelectric power
plants by using water accumulations on the river Drava. These accumulations may have a variety of
negative impacts on the existing services provided by DSDF. In addition to direct destruction of
natural ecosystems, another highly adverse effect would be the prevailing misbalance in the
transport of bed load material gravel and sand, characterised by trapping of the material in the
accumulation, with increased erosion downstream of the dam. One consequence of this misbalance
would be the acceleration of the river flow, due to the cutting off of meanders and the narrowing of
river beds, which would cause higher erosion that results in the deepening of river beds (which is at
the level of 1.7 cm per year on the Drava River at Botovo), and the accompanying draining of
underground waters and decrease of aquifer water tables, which are important for growth of
floodplain forests and drinking water abstraction.

The system of planned hydropower accumulations on the Drava River HEPP Molve 1 and Molve 2
and VHS Osijek would turn 64 rkm of the river into a reservoir, and destroy 56 km2 of core zones of
the Drava river floodplain habitats. With the installed power of 114 MW and an annual production of

115
720 GWh, this system would reach 50% of the electricity production achieved by the existing HEPP
North at Varadin, but it would require an area twice as large as that of HEPP North. This is a
consequence of the lower river slope (0.34), which is less convenient for using hydroenergy.

Nine ecosystem services have been evaluated in the pilot study area (PSA, 201 km2, 38 rkm)
delineated for the purposes of this study, and two of them have been evaluated for the entire range
of DSDF. Three ecosystem services wood production, flood mitigation and habitat provision have
been evaluated for all three alternative scenarios in the PSA: the as-is state (scenario A); construction
of accumulations Molve 1 and Molve 2 (scenario B); sustainable development characterised by the
extended active floodplain zone (scenario C).

The regulating service of flood mitigation has been evaluated on the basis of flood storage volume
provided by the floodplain inundation zone or by the accumulation. Monetary evaluation was
performed on the basis of the shadow project method, using the cost of provision of retention
volume in the technical structure of polder or accumulation type. The total area of designed
inundation zones in DSDF is 1,588 km2, which represents a remarkable volume, considering the fact
that depth can reach 4-6 m. The larges flood storage capacities are located in the Sava river
floodplain, where they are estimated at 2.12 billion m3. In the PSA, the inundation volume was
calculated at 166 million m3 for scenario A, 198 million m3 for scenario C, and 47 million m3 for
scenario B, with the retention volume estimated at 50% of the total storage volume of the proposed
reservoir. Monetary evaluation gave the value of 5,020 USD.ha-1.year-1 for scenario A, where the
service is currently provided without any cost, as opposed to scenario B, where investments would
be needed.

The value of nutrient retention as ecosystem service has been evaluated on the basis of the existing
studies within the Danube river basin pollution reduction programme, where the value is estimated
at 250 USD per ha of active floodplain.

The evaluation of habitat provision is based on Croatian habitat mapping, where ecologically
valuable habitats relevant for floodplains have been analysed for their area located in DSDF and PSA.
For monetary evaluation, the average cost of habitat restoration was used (on the basis of
revitalisation experiences for the Danube and Drava rivers in Austria or Slovenia, and on the basis of
wetland revitalisations in the Czech Republic). The most valuable habitats include floodplain forests,
namely hardwood alluvial forest of pedunculate oak (code E22, area 106,000 ha, value 2.2 billion
USD); mixed oak-hornbeam (E31, area 83,000 ha, value 1.6 billion USD); alluvial willow and poplar
forest (E11/E12, area 38,000 ha, value 763 million USD); and alluvial forest of black alder and narrow-
leafed ash (E21, area 28,000 ha, value 366 million USD). Humid grasslands also belong to the most
valuable habitats, with the area of 57,000 ha and value 1.2 billion USD), together with permanent
watercourses and standing waters (area approx. 35,000 ha, value 540 million USD). In the PSA, the
value of floodplain habitats is estimated at 139 (A), 107 (B) and 179 (C) million USD.

Wood production has been evaluated both as productive value for monetary evaluation, we used
the usual market price of wood products and as total value, which also includes non-productive
value according to the methodology used by the Croatian Forests Ltd., resulting in 5.7 times higher
value compared with the productive value of floodplain forest. The productive value of forests in
DSDF is 2.5 billion USD, whereas the total value peaks at 17.2 billion USD. In the PSA, the productive
value is 60 (A), 55 (B) and 67 (C) million USD, with yearly increment per ha at 284 USD. The impact of
scenario B was assessed only as an effect of the decrease of forest due to the destruction by
accumulation. The adverse effect on underground water table and forest growth has not been

116
evaluated in this study, although it is supposed to be large and affecting remarkable areas of forests
downstream of the PSA.

Fish production has been quantified only for the PSA in scenario A, based on fish management plans
for the relevant fishing grounds (Croatian Fishery Association). The allowed catch limits have been
used for running waters (river Drava) and standing waters. When it comes to monetary evaluation,
we used the average prices of freshwater fish meat. Fish production in the PSA is estimated at
450,000 USD; in terms of the value per hectare of natural river and oxbow habitats (unstocked
waters), it stands at 277 USD.

Game animals production in the PSA has been estimated for scenario A solely on the basis of annual
animal harvests in the relevant hunting grounds (Koprivnica, urevac, Repa forest), and on the
basis of price for particular game species. The total value of the service is 1.45 million USD, or 18 USD
per hectare.

Drinking water provision pertains to the whole extent of geological floodplains in northern Croatia,
where over 3 million inhabitants depend on this service. For the entirety of the PSA area, we
estimated the service according to the annual abstraction from the Legrad-Slatina underground
water body and the average price of drinking water in Koprivnica - Krievci County. The value of the
service is 396 USD per hectare.

Provision of recreation has been estimated on the basis of the number of tourist visiting Koprivnica-
Krievci County. On the basis of comparisons with other tourist destinations of a similar character
(such as the Duna-Drava National Park in Hungary), we estimated that the potential number of
visitors might be 5-10 times higher than the present number of tourists, which is low as a result of
undeveloped infrastructure, difficult access to river ecosystems, and lack of information for visitors.
Scenario B would not provide better recreation possibilities compared to scenarios A and C.

Art inspiration has been assessed for the naive art painting school, originating in the PSA and being
inspired by the river and its ecosystems. For scenarios A and C, we can estimate that the economic
benefit would be in the range of 100,000 USD to 300,000 USD per year; scenario B would practically
destroy the principal source of this inspiration, and should therefore be taken as having zero value.

Comparison of scenarios for evaluated ecosystem services: When it comes to the services evaluated
for all three scenarios for the PSA, scenario C provided the highest values for three key services:
wood production, habitat provision and flood mitigation. This is a consequence of land use changes
in these scenarios (replacement of natural habitats by accumulation in scenario B, and their
enlargement in scenario C), as well as a consequence of the structure and enlargement of the active
inundation zone, which provides larger flood storage volume.

Impact of the proposed HEPPs Molve 1 and Molve 2 on ecosystem services, including both
evaluated and non-evaluated services, is mostly negative.

When it comes to the incentives important for the protection and strengthening of ecosystem
services, we have emphasized the importance of: 1) nature protection, which seems to be
satisfactory at present; 2) consistent implementation of the relevant European directives, specifically
the Directive on the assessment and management of flood risks (2007/60/EC), where the
requirement of ensuring space for rivers is strongly formulated, as well as the Water Framework
Directive (2000/60/EC), which bounds EU countries to improve the ecological status of rivers; 3) wise
use of subsidies for support to extensive management in floodplains; and 4) realisation of
development and restoration projects, in particular those of international character.

117
Messages to decision makers
Floodplains in northern Croatia along the rivers Drava, Sava and Danube provide a number of
benefits ecosystem services in their current state, with a remarkable economic impact.

Aquifers sourced and maintained by these rivers provide drinking water storage for over 3 million
inhabitants of northern Croatia, and for a number of enterprises.

Floodplain forests (oak, ash, hornbeam, alder, willow and poplar), with the estimated value of 2.5
billion USD (as value of wood storage), provide a remarkable annual wood harvest worth 73 million
USD. Hardwood products are particularly valued and highly priced, coupled with growth trends.

The surface of 1,600 km2 of floodplains provides major flood storage capacities, which mitigates the
floods by both reducing the peak discharges and slowing down the flood waves due to rough
surfaces (forest vegetation). It would be very expensive to provide such flood protection artificially
via engineering structures such as polders or reservoirs.

The restoration of wetlands and active floodplains within the Danube basin rivers has been
recognised as a principal tool to mitigate the adverse nutrient load flowing into the Black Sea. The
ability of these ecosystems to uptake and store phosphorus and nitrogen has been recognised as an
economically relevant tool to tackle this international problem.

Valuable habitats provide shelter and support for endangered biodiversity. In a situation in which
most floodplain habitats have been destroyed in Europe, which is why they are currently subject to
revitalisation in a number of expensive projects, floodplains of the abovementioned rivers remain
relatively preserved.

In addition to wood production, flood protection and habitats, floodplains and rivers also provide
fish, game animals, sand and gravel; they also clean the water by re-cycling nutrients, store carbon,
stabilise climate by supporting the water cycle, provide opportunities for recreation, inspire artists (in
naive art and songs), and provide land for agriculture, including the traditional indigenous breeds and
local food products.

For the purposes of maintenance and protection of these ecosystem services, it is necessary to keep
the floodplains active. In other words, it is important to enable overbank flows and regular flooding
of floodplains, in order to source underground waters important for aquifer levels and ensure the
growth of trees, flood mitigation and connectivity within the ecosystem.

When it comes to considering the development projects, such as hydropower accumulation systems,
these benefits should be taken into account and included in cost-benefit studies, as well as in the
calculation of possible losses.

The proposed benefits of multipurpose projects should be considered cautiously and thoroughly as
they are introduced. In case of the existing reservoirs, promises regarding water for irrigation, tourist
development and improvements in natural habitats have not been fulfilled. Quite to the contrary:
the deepening of river beds endangered the aquifer levels, led to a drastic decrease of wood
increment, negatively impacted upon hunting, aesthetic value of the landscape and water self-
purification; it blocked migration routes for fish and damaged or destroyed natural habitats. Flood

118
protection remained limited because of the constant need to produce energy, which makes it
impossible to empty the reservoirs in order to mitigate the floods effectively. The proposed
accumulations on the Drava river would produce half the energy produced by the HEPP North at
Varadin, but it would require twice bigger area than the previously built accumulations.

When it comes to the future perspectives for northern Croatian floodplains, the preservation or
enlargement of active floodplains should be a priority, together with wise use of floodplain sources,
such as extensive management in the core zones with the aim of protecting rivers from pollution.
The development of sustainable tourism has a great potential, as well as alternative energy sources
(no-dam solutions, biomass). In the context of incentives important for maintenance and/or
enhancing of ecosystem services, one should support the mechanisms of subsidies that motivate
land users for extensive management, projects focused on revitalisations of floodplain ecosystems,
and motivation for local communities to wisely connect the use of natural resources and economic
activities.

Literature

Aleri, S., Juri, V., Lali, R., Mahmutovi, Z., Marasovi, M., Pavia, T., Pavlin, ., Pletikapi, Z., Sever,
Z., Srdarevi-Dabac, M., Tabak-Parai, B., Vedri, M. (2012): Program iskoritenja slobodnog
hidropotencijala u Republici Hrvatskoj. Hrvatska komora inenjera graevinarstva, Zagreb-Opatija.

Anonymus ( 2011): Akcijski plan razvoja ekoloke poljoprivrede u Republici Hrvatskoj za razdoblje
2011.-2016. godine.
http://www.mps.hr/UserDocsImages/strategije/AKCIJSKI%20PLAN%20RAZVOJA%20EKOLO%C5%A0K
E%20POLJOPRIVREDE%20ZA%20RAZDOBLJE%202011-2016.pdf.

Anonymus (2000): Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)


http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html.

Anonymus (2006): Cjenik divljai, Ministarstvo poljoprivrede, umarstva i vodnog gospodarstva (NN
67/06).

Anonymus (2008): Metodologija ocjenjivanija opekorisnih funkcija uma, NN 111/06, 141/08.

Anonymus (2008): Revizija ribolovno-gospodarske osnove Zajednica sportsko ribolovnih klubova


urevac 2009-2015.

Opaak, A. et al. (2009): Revizija ribolovno-gospodarske osnove Zajednica sportsko ribolovnih


klubova urevac2009-2015. Sveuilite Josipa Jurja Strossmayera u Osijeku, Poljoprivredni fakultet
u Osijeku, Osijek.

Anonymus (2009): National Habitat Classification, State Institute for Nature Protection,www.dzzp.hr

Anonymus (2011): Uredba o proglaenju Regionalnog parka Mura-Drava http://www.min-


kulture.hr/userdocsimages/priroda%20nova/Uredbu%20o%20progla%C5%A1enju%20Regionalnog%
20parka%20MuraDrava.pdf

119
Anonymus (2012): The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, European Commission,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/2020.htm.

Hrvatske ume (2012): Dopuna cjenika glavnih umskih proizvoda Hrvatskih uma d.o.o.

Hrvatske ume (2014): Cjenik odstrela divljai i usluga lova s vanou od 01. travnja 2014. do 31.
oujka 2015.,

Anonymus (2014): The Market Information System in agriculture (TISUP) from 2004-2009.
www.tisup.mps.hr/Arhiva.aspx?id=3.

Antoni, O., Hatic, D., Krian, J.&Bukovec, D. (2001): Modelling groundwater regime acceptable for the
forest survival after the building of the hydro-electric power plant. Ecological Modelling, 138: 277-
288.

Baptist, M.J Haasnoot, M.Cornelissen, P., Icke,J.,VanderWedden, G., deVriend H.J., Gugic, G. (2006):
Flood detention, nature development and water quality along the lowland river Sava, Croatia.
Hydrobiologia 565:243257.

Bayley, B. P. (1991): The flood pulse advantage and the restoration of river-floodplain systems.
Regulated Rivers: Research and Management. 6 (2): 7586. Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Baxter, R.M. (1977): Environmental Effects of Dams and Impoundments. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics8: 255-283.

Biggs, D., Turpie, J., Fabricius, C. And Spenceley, A. (2011): The value of avitourism for conservation
and job creation - An analysis from South Africa. Conservation and Society 9(1): 80-90.

Bonacci, O. and Oskoru, D. (2008): The influence of three Croatian hydroelectric power plants
operation on the river Drava hydrological and sediment regime.

Bonacci, O. and Oskoru, D. (2010): The changes in the lower Drava River water level, discharge and
suspended sediment regime. Environ Earth Sci 59:16611670.

Bonacci, O. Tadi, Z., and Trnii, D. (1992): Effects of dams and reservoirs on the hydrological
charactersistic of the Drava River. Regulated Rivers; Research and Management 7 (4): 349-357.

Brki, ., Larva, O. & Urumovi, K. (2010): The quantitative status of groundwater in alluvial aquifers
in northern Croatia. Geologica Croatica, 63(3): 283-298.

Brundi, D., Barbali, D., Omerbegovi, V., Schneider-Jacoby, M. & Tusi, Z. (2000): Alluvial wetlands
preservation in Croatia The experience of the central Sava basin flood control system,
Euronatur,109-113.

Costanza, R., Farber, S.C. and Maxwell, J. (1989): Valuation and management of wetlands
ecosystems. Ecological Economics 1: 335-361.

Costanza, R., dArge, R, de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon,B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S.,
ONeill, R.V., Paruelo, J.,Raskin, R.G., Sutto, P., & Belt van der, M., (1997): The value of the worlds
ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253260.

120
Croatian Geological Survey, Department for Geology (2009): Geological Map of the Republic of
Croatia, 1:300 000 (in Croatian).

ern, J. (2011): Economical costs of wetland creation and water retention in the landscape in Czech
Republic. (Finann nklady na retenci vody v krajin a tvorbu mokad na zem esk republiky, in
Czech). Diploma work.South Bohemian University in esk Budjovice, Faculty of Science,
Department of Ecosystem Biology.120 p.

kov, H., Kvt, J., Comin F.A., Laiho R., Pokorn J., Pithart D. (2013): Actual state of European
wetlands and their possible future in the context of global climate change.Aquat. Sci 75: 326.

Daily, G. C. (Ed.) 1997.Nature's services. Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press,
Washington, DC.392 pp.

David, V. and Dostl, T. (2012): Floodplain Retention Capacity Assessment for Lunice River. AUC
Geographica 47(1): 512.

David, V., Valenta, P., Valentov, J. [Eds.] (2011): Posuzovn retenn kapacity nch niv a monosti
jejho zven metodika.VUT, Praha, 45 p.

Dostl, T., David, V., Valentov, J., Valenta, P., Weyskrabov, L., Snhota, M., anda,M., Jansk,B.,
Turek,M.,Pithart, D. (2013): Hydrological processes in floodplains and their importance for water
retention. In: Pithart D., Dostl, T., Langhammer J., Jansk M. (eds.) (2013): Importance of water
retention in floodplains.(Vznam retence vody v nch nivch). Daphne R, P3K Prague, 69-88.

Gallery Mijo Kovai (2014)www.mijokovacic.com/gallery.

Gore, A. (1993): Earth in the balance. Ecology and Human Spirit. A Plume Book, New York, 407 pp.

Grdan, D. and Kovaev-Marini, B. (1992): The Effects of the akovec hydroelectric power plant on
ground water system. Rudarsko-geoloko-naftni zbornik 4: 37-45.

Gren I., M., Groth,K., H., Sylvn, M. (1995): Economic evaluation of Danube floodplains. WWF
International Discussion Paper. Journal of Environmental Management, Elsevier.

Grlica I., Razlog-Grlica J. (2007): Studija bioloke raznolikosti rijeke Drave: Stanita-strme obale i
sprudovi European Green Belt.

Gvozdi, V., Brana, J., Puntari, D., Vidosavljevi, D. and Roland, D. (2011): Changes in the lower
Drava River water quality parameters over 24 years. Arh Hig Rada Toksikol 62: 325-333

Habersack, H., Schober, B. and Hauer, C. (2013): Floodplain evaluation matrix (FEM): An
interdisciplinary method for evaluating river floodplains in the context of intergrated flood risk
management. Natural Hazards

Habersack, H., Schober, B.& Hauer, C. (2013): A novel assessment of the role of Danube floodplains in
flood hazard reduction (FEM method). Natural Hazards, 69

Haslam, S. M. (2008): The riverscape and the river. Cambridge university press, 404 p.

Hejzlar, J., malov, K., Boers, P., Kronvang, B. (2006): Modelling phosphorus retention in lakes and
Reservoirs. Water, Air, and soil Pollution:Focus 6: 487-494.

121
Hrvatska elektoprivreda d.d., Sektor za strategiju, planiranje investicija i korporativni razvoj (2013):
Podloga za izradu prostornih planova.Opis HE Molve 1 i HE Molve 2

Hrvatske vode (2011): Izvjetaj o stanju povrinskih voda u Republici Hrvatskoj u 2010. i 2011. godini.

Institut za turizam (2010): Prirodna resursna osnova i razvoj turizma u Regionalnom parku Mura -
Drava u Koprivniko- krievakoj upaniji.

Institut za turizam (2010): Projekt NATREG u sklopu Transnacioalnog programa South East
Europe.Prirodna resursna osnova i razvoj turizma u Regionalnom parku Mura-Drava u Koprivniko-
krievakoj upaniji, Zagreb, 66 p.

International Sava River Basin Commission (2013): Transboundary Ecotourism Guidelines for the Sava
River Basin - One River, Four Countries, Unlimited Possibilities.

Junk,W. J., Bayley, P. B. & Spartks, R. E. (1989): The flood pulse concept in river floodplain systems.
In: Dodge, D. P. [Ed.]: Proceedings of the international Large River Symposium, Can.J.Fish. Aquat. Sci.
Spec. Publ. 106: 100127.

Kiedrzynska, E., Wagner, I. and Zalewski, M. (2008): Quantification of phosphorus retention efficiency
by floodplain vegetation and a management strategy for a eutrophic reservoir restoration. Ecological
Engineering 33:15-25.

Klimo, E., Hager, H., Mati, S, Ani, I., Kulhav, J. (2008): Floodplain forests of the temperate zone of
Europe. Lesnick Prce, Zln, 623 p.

Kuspili, N., Beki, D. (2004): Inland waterways regulation and river restoration in Croatia. Third
European conference on the River restoration, Zagreb, Croatia. P 165-171.

Lair, G.J., Zehetner, F., Fiebig, M., Gerzabek, M.H., Gestel, C.A.M., Hein, T., Hohensinner, S., Hsu, P.,
Jones, K.C., Jordan, G., Koelmans, A.A., Poot, A., Slijkerman, D.M.E., Totsche, K.U., Bondar-Kunze, E.
and Barth, J.A.C. (2009): How do long-term development and periodical changes of river-floodplain
systems affect the fate of contaminants? Results from European rivers. Environmental Pollution 1-2:
1-11.

Life vein Upper Drau Nature Restoration Campaign in Carinthia (2014) www.life-drau.at.

Marek M.V, Janou,D., Taufarov, J., Havrnkov, K., Pavelka, P., Kaplan, V., Markov, I., (2011):
Carbon exchange between ecosystems and atmosphere in the Czech Republic is affected by climate
factors. Environmental Pollution159(5): 1035-1039.

Markovi, S. (2002): Hrvatske mineralne sirovine, Institut za geoloka istraivanja,Zavod za geologiju,


Zagreb, P 62-65.

Michor, K., Senfter, S., Unterlercher, M.(2013): Life Drava Croata River restoration concept 226,5-
200 rkm, Mava Foundation and Asamer Holding, Nussdorf-Debant, 61 p.

Middleton, B.A. (2002): The flood pulse concept in Wetland restoration. In: Middleton B.A. (ed):
Flood pulsing in wetlands. Restoring the natural Hydrological balance. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New
York , 308 p, P 1-10.

122
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island
Press, Washington, DC.

Ministarstvo prostornog ureenja, graditeljstva i stanovanja (2007): Strategija prostornog ureenja


Republike Hrvatske. Kartografski prikaz 44-13: Podruja za daljnja istraivanja moguih lokacija za
smjetaj novih energetskih objekata.

MOHL, A. (1998): Landschafts und Gewsserstrukturkartierung an der kroatischungarischen Drau,


im Gebiet des geplanten kroatischen Wasserkraftwerkes Novo Virje, unter besonderer Berck
sichtigung naturschutzrelevanter und gewsserkologischer Fragestellungen. Diplomarbeit, Universi
tt fr Bodenkultur Wien, Wien, 223 S. + Karten.

Mrakovi et al. (2012): Fizikalno-kemijske, bioloke i ihtioloke znaajke nadzemnih voda


hidroenergetskog sustava HE Varadin, akovec i HE Dubrava u 2012 godini.Prirodoslovno-
matematiki fakultet Sveuilita u Zagrebu, Bioloki Odsjek, Zoologijski Zavod.

Mrakovi, M., Brigi, A., Buj, I., aleta, M., Mustafi, P., Zanella, D.(2006): Red Book of Freshwater
fish of Croatia, Ministry of Culture, State Institute for Nature Protection, Zagreb, 256 p (in Croatian).

NATURA 2000 u Hrvatskoj (2014) http://natura2000.dzzp.hr/natura/.

Newell R.G., Stavins, R.N. (2000): Climate Change and Forest Sinks: Factors Affecting the Costs of
Carbon Sequestration. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 40(3): 211235.

Niemayer R. et al. (1999): Danube pollution programme, Danube River Basin pollution reduction.
Programme report. Programme Coordination Unit, UNDP/GEF Study.

Pedersen, M.L., Andersen, J.M., Nielsen, K. and Linnemann, M. (2007): Restoration of Skjern River
and its valley - Project description and general ecological changes in the project area. Ecological
Engineering 30: 131-144.

Pithart D., Dostl, T., Langhammer J., Jansk M. (eds.) (2013): Importance of water retention in
floodplains.(Vznam retence vody v nch nivch). Daphne R, P3K Prague, 250 p.(in Czech).

Pithart, D.,Kovkov, K., aloudk, J., Dostl, T., Valentov, J., Valenta, P., Weyskrabov, J. and
Duek, J. (2010): Ecosystem services of natural floodplain segment Lunice River, Czech Republic.
p.129-143. In: Wrachien,D., Brebia C.A., Proverb, D., Mambreti, S. (eds) Flood recovery, Innovation
and Response II, 313 pp. WIT Press, Ashurst, Southampton, UK, ISBN: 978-1-84564-444-4.

Pravilnik o ureivanju uma, Narodne novine broj 111/06; 141/08.

Prpi, B. and Jakovac, H. (1998): Znaenje opekorisnih funkcija nizinskih uma u usporedbi
splaniranim gospodarskim koristima H.E. N.Virje Proc.Internat.Conf. Sustainable Use of the Lowland
Rivers and the Protection of Nature and Environment. Hrvatsko umarsko drutvo, Hrvatsko
energetsko drutvo and Euronatur, Zagreb: p. 53-60 (in English 149-151).

Prpi,B. et al.(2005): Floodplain forests in Croatia, Academy of Forestry Sciences, Zagreb, p. 147-190

Purger, J.J. (2008): Biodiversity studies along the Drava River, Pecs, 328 p.

Prpi, B. (2001): Utjecaj vodotehnikih zahvata na stabilnost sastojina hrasta lunjaka (Quercus robur)
u Hrvatskoj na primjeru HE Novo Virje , umarski list, 125(7-8):379-390.

123
Ramsar Bucharest 2012. (2012). Ramsar COP11 DR7.11th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to
the Convention on Wetlands.Retrieved from www.ramsar.org/pdf/cop11/dr/cop11-dr07-e-
tourism.pdf.

Republic of Croatia State Geodetic Administration (2011): Digital orthophoto map in


colorhttp://geoportal.dgu.hr/wms

Schneider-Jakoby,M.: The Sava and Drava floodplains: Threatened ecosystems of international


importance. In: Bloesch.J.(ed): 2004: River basin Management: Concepts and Transboundary
Implementation (with special reference to the Danube River). Selected papers of the 35th IAD
conference in Novi Sad (Serbia and |Montenegro). p. 249-289.

Schreiber, H., Behrendt, H., Constantinescu, L.T., Cvitanic, I., Drumea, D., Jabucar, D., Juran, S., Pataki,
B., Snishko, S and Zessner, M. (2005): Point and difffuse nutrient emissions and loads in the
transboundary Danube River Basin I.A. modelling approach. Arch. Hydrobiol.Suppl 158 (1-2): 197-
220.

Schwarz, U. (2010): Assessment of the restoration potential along the Danube and main tributaries .
Working paper for the Danube River Basin.Vienna, 59 p.

Sejk, J. & Dejmal, I. (2003): Hodnocen a oceovn biotop esk republiky (Evaluation of Biotopes
in The Czech Republic). Czech Ecological Institute, Prague, s. 422.Can.J.Fish.Aquat.Sci.Spec.Publ. 106:
100127.

Sustainable Integrated Management of International River Corridors in SEE Countries


(2014).www.see-river.net.

Srensen, B. (2004): Renewable Energy: Its Physics, Engineering, Use, Environmental Impacts,
Economy, and Planning Aspects. Academic Press.P 556.

otari, R. (2004): The development of vegetation in the inland area of Croatia during the Postglacial
period. Natura Croatica 13(4): 357-369.

TEEB The economics of Ecosystems and biodiversity for local and regional Policy Makers (2010).

Turinski, M. (2012): GIS analysis of the bike paths development on the territory of the former
Municipality of Koprivnica, Master Thesis, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Science, Department of
Geography, Zagreb.

Turner, R. K., Georgiou, S., Fisher, B. (2008): Valuing ecosystem services. The case of multi-functional
wetlands, Earthscan, London, p. 229.

UNDO (1972): Study for regulation and management of the Sava River in Yugoslavia. United Nations
Development Oce, Consortium Polytechna-Hydroprojekt-Carlo Lotti & C. Prag-Roma.

UNDP (2006): Danube River Basin, Updated Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis, Based on EU Water
Framework Directive, Analysis Report.

UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Mura Drava Danube (2014) http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-


sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/europe-north-
america/croatiahungary/mura-drava-danube/.

Valenta, P. and Valentov, J. (2003): Detailed Numerical Modeling of Flood Flow in Floodplains with
Complex Geometry. Acta Polytechnica 3(43): 5560.

124
Valentov J., Valenta P., Weyskrabov L. (2010): Assesing the Retention Capacity of a Floodplain
Using a 2D Numerical Model.J. Hydrol.Hydromech., 58(4):221232.

Vienamjenski hidrotehniki sustav Osijek (2012): Studija Projekt vie struka. Studija utjecaja na
okoli i ekoloku mreu, Osjeko-baranjska upanija, Osijek.

Vugrinovi, A., Galeski, P., Horvat, Lj. and Tomai, M. (2012): Marketing plan podruja Parka prirode
Lonjsko polje za razdoblje od 2013. do 2020. godine,98 p.

Vukeli, J. (2005): Floodplain forests in Croatia. Academy of Forestry Sciences, Zagreb, 455 p.

Vukeli, J. (2008): Pregled uma i umskih zajednica te prikaz ekoloke i gospodarske funkcije uma
(Porjeje rijeke Mure Drave i Dunava), archive of SINP

Witkowski, A., Baji, A., Treer, T., Hegedi, A., Mari, S., prem, N., Piria, M. and Kapusta, A. (2013):
Past and present of and perspectives for the Danube huchen, Hucho hucho (L.), in the Danube basin.
Archives of Polish Fisheries 21: 129-142

WWF-Auen-Institut (1999): Danube pollution reduction programme. Evaluation of wetlands and


floodplain areas in the Danube River Basin. Final Report.92 p.

125
Annex I - Protected Areas in DSDF

EU ecological network Natura 2000 SPA

HR1000013 Dravske akumulacije Drava

HR1000014 Gornji tok Drave (od Donje Dubrave do Terezinog polja) Drava

HR1000015 Srednji tok Drave Drava

HR1000016 Podunavlje i donje Podravlje Danube

HR1000004 Donja Posavina Sava

HR1000005 Jelas polje Sava

HR1000010 Poilovlje s ribnjacima Sava

HR1000001 Pokupski bazen Sava

HR1000011 Ribnjaci Grudnjak i Naice Sava

HR1000009 Ribnjaci uz esmu Sava

HR1000002 Sava kod Hruice Sava

HR1000006 Spavanski bazen Sava

HR1000003 Turopolje Sava

EU ecological network Natura 2000 pSCI

HR2000728 Biljsko groblje Drava

HR2000730 Bistrinci Drava

HR2001416 Brezovica-Jelik Drava

HR2000570 Crni jarki Drava

HR2001347 Donje Medjimurje Drava

HR2001308 Donji tok Drave Drava

HR2001307 Drava - akumulacije Drava

126
HR5000014 Gornji tok Drave (od Donje Dubrave do Terezinog polja) Drava

HR2000572 Klotarski (Kalinovaki) peski Drava

HR2000364 Mura Drava

HR2000573 Petrijevci Drava

HR2001085 Ribnjak Grudnjak s okolnim umskim kompleksom Drava

HR5000015 Srednji tok Drave (od Terezinog polja do Donjeg Miholjca) Drava

HR2001004 Stari Gradac - Lendava Drava

HR2001005 Starogradaki Marof Drava

HR2001006 upanijski kanal (Gornje Bazje - Zidina) Drava

HR2000372 Dunav - Vukovar Danube

HR2001309 Dunav S od Kopakog rita Danube

HR2001088 Mala Dubrava - Vuedol Danube

HR2001500 Stepska stanita kod Bapske Danube

HR2001502 Stepska stanita kod arengrada Danube

HR2000394 Kopaki rit Danube;Drava

HR2001403 Bijela Sava

HR2001086 Brezniki ribnjak (Ribnjak Naice) Sava

HR2001323 esma - ume Sava

HR2001289 Davor - livade Sava

HR2000463 Dolina Une Sava

HR2000234 Draganika uma - Jeevica 1 Sava

HR2000426 Dvorina Sava

HR2000427 Gajna Sava

HR2001216 Ilova Sava

HR2001335 Jastrebarski lugovi Sava

HR2001326 Jelas polje s ribnjacima Sava

HR2000642 Kupa Sava

127
HR2001293 Livade kod Grubinog Polja Sava

HR2000416 Lonjsko polje Sava

HR2000593 Mrenica - Tounjica Sava

HR2001031 Odra kod Jagodna Sava

HR2000415 Odransko polje Sava

HR2001370 Podruje oko Hrvatske Kostajnice Sava

HR2001503 Potok Bregana Sava

HR2001288 Priac - Luani Sava

HR2000449 Ribnjaci Crna Mlaka Sava

HR2000450 Ribnjaci Draganii Sava

HR2000437 Ribnjaci Konanica Sava

HR2000441 Ribnjaci Narta Sava

HR2000451 Ribnjaci Pisarovina Sava

HR2000438 Ribnjaci Poljana Sava

HR2000440 Ribnjaci Siani i Blatnica Sava

HR2001327 Ribnjak Dubrava Sava

HR2001243 Rijeka esma Sava

HR2001311 Sava nizvodno od Hruice Sava

HR2001415 Spava JZ Sava

HR2001414 Spavanski bazen Sava

HR2000420 Sunjsko polje Sava

HR2001070 Sutla Sava

HR2000623 ume na Dilj gori Sava

HR2000444 Varoki Lug Sava

HR2001379 Vlakanac-Radinje Sava

HR2001356 Zrinska gora Sava

HR2001006 upanijski kanal (Gornje Bazje - Zidina) Sava

128
HR2000465 utica Sava

Ramsar sites

Crna Mlaka

Nature Park Lonjsko polje and Mokro polje

Nature Park Kopaki rit

Croatian National Category of Protection according to


Croatian Nature Protection Act (OG 80/13).

Nature Park
Kopaki rit
Lonjsko polje

Regional Park
Mura - Drava

Significant Landscape
ambina
Erdut
Gajna
Jelas polje
Jelku
Krinica
Krinica
Mura
Odransko polje
Panjak Iva
Savica
Spava
Sunjsko polje
irinski otok
Turopoljski lug
Vir
Virovi

Special Reserve
Bara Dvorina ornithological
Crna mlaka ornithological
Crni jarki forest
esma forest
ol Draiblato ornithological
Jastrebarski lugovi ornithological
Jelas ribnjaci - dio ornithological
Krapje ol ornithological

129
Loe forest
Podpanj ornithological
Pranik forest
Radievo forest
Rakita ornithological
Sava - Strmec ornithological
Sava - Zaprei ornithological
Varoki lug zoological
Varoki lug - uma forest
Veliki Paut ornithological
Vukovarske dunavske ade forest

Natural Monument
Biljsko groblje - travnjak ornithological
Gorjanoviev praporni profil u Vukovaru geological
Topole u Dravskoj umi botanical
Hrastovi u Drenovcima protected trees
Brijestovi u Drenovcima protected trees
Hrast u upanji protected trees
Hrastovi u Starim Mikanovcima protected trees
Hrast Iulius protected trees
Hrastovi kod umarije Repa protected trees

Horticultural Monument
Bilje - park oko dvorca park
Dalj - park pokraj patrijarije park
Donji Miholjac - park uz dvorac park
Ilok - park oko starog grada park
Karlovac - Marmontova aleja protected trees
Karlovac - Vrbaniev perivoj park
Kriovljangrad - park uz dvorac park
Kriovljangrad - park uz dvorac park
Noskovaka Dubrava - skupina stabala protected trees
Osijek - Perivoj kralja Tomislava park
Valpovo - park oko dvorca park
Park forest
Brdo Djed
Dravska uma
Kanovci
Kunjevci
Zvirinac

130

Potrebbero piacerti anche